Dave Hirsch replied to Payton Baughman's comment.
Courtney Hicks I would love to continue this discussion, but I decided last night that I'm leaving Facebook, because it is bad for the world as a platform, and so I don't want to support it with my participation. I like social media, and I'm not sure where I will end up. but I can't support a platform that tries to portray Breitbart as an authoritative source of truth about the world, and that allows rampant political falsehoods to be broadcast across it. So, for now, I guess we could chat on Twitter (which I hate, actually, but I don't know of any other platform with reach). I'm @davehirsch2 there.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
It's not the people that are the problem, it's the platform. Facebook as an organization is bad for the world, on balance. If this is an organization, a place, where Breitbart is considered truthful, then this is not a place I want to support. And Zuckerberg's recent testimony does not give me hope for improvement.

And make no mistake, just by reading Facebook, you provide revenue to the business as you scroll by all those ads.

I'm leaning towards Vero (https://vero.co/) as a possible alternative. Of course, the network effects make it useless unless others come along. We'll see.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I think those of us that value a good society should just leave this place to the right-wing trolls. Anybody have a suggestion for a better online society place?

Maybe I'll see what's going on with Snapchat or even [shudder] Twitter.

It's going to take me some time to download all my data, and I may leave a zombie profile here, but I'm going to delete the app from my gadgets and such, and stop dropping by to get my likes.
Dave Hirsch replied to Payton Baughman's comment.
Courtney Hicks I don't recall saying that, but if so, then I am able to be convinced with less than 100%. There are certainly things that I believe to be true on the basis of evidence and reasoning, such as: "the sun exists when I can't see it", or "the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old". Knock yourself out, man: show me the proof!
Dave Hirsch replied to Payton Baughman's comment.
Well, I suppose they would also have to prove that he wants our worship.
Dave Hirsch replied to Payton Baughman's comment.
Courtney Hicks if someone could prove to me that God exists then I would worship him.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Weinstein's post.
NCSA Mosaic 4 EVAH!
Dave Hirsch commented on Suzanne Block's post.
Love you Suzanne, but this is a chain BS thing and it is incorrect.

Copying and pasting doesn't bypass any kind of blocking system. The only benefit you might get is that by having people comment on one of your posts, like I am doing now, FB will tie you closer together and bump them up in your algorithm so you are more likely to see the posts from me and the other commenters here.

But there's nothing magical about the chain post you pasted. You could post a political message or a cute dog photo, and any commenters would get a similar boost in your algorithm and you might be more likely to see their posts.
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Scott's post.
This will significantly decrease my quality of life. Will you be on some other system? Twitter?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Joel O'Connor wins for the most on-point XKCD!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
"ass friends"
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
I agree that this was a better choice than Thunberg.
Dave Hirsch commented on Bob Gaines's photo.
I GET KNOCKED DOWN
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson so do you still claim then that “the left [has] abandoned policy discussions”?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson since when? Warren, the front- runner, is essentially 100% policy! She’s more policy than any candidate at this point in the race for the last few decades, maybe ever!
If you’re thinking about loudmouths online, that’s an unfair way to characterize the party as a whole. You wouldn’t want to be characterized by the most strident members of your group, would you?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Who cares about Zuckerberg? The voters are liking Warren. I notice that your criticisms are not addressing any policy points; is there a reason for that?
Dave Hirsch commented on Pati Abbott's post.
So sorry to hear this.
Dave Hirsch commented on Feet First Eventertainment's photo.
3) Vodka Martini, Shaken, not stirred - Bond
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
I think it looks good this way.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger I agree that it’s interesting! Thanks for posting it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Not sure what you mean about warming, and a excursion is not "almost" a pole reversal. By "reversal", you presumably either mean the poles flipped at all, which they did for a few hundred years in this event, or you mean there was a "real" reversal (meaning both the inner and outer core flipped polarity), which did not happen in this event.
Here's the temperature data for the period covered, with the dot identifying the data point for 42000 years ago. Where is the warming you speak of, that you imply is connected with this few-hundred year magnetic event? It looks to me like an uninterrupted warming trend from 45300 to 41500 years ago, with no deviations from that trend that might be related to a few-hundred-year excursion.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joanne Mizutani-Neuffer's comment.
Joanne Mizutani-Neuffer I don’t think I have it though.
Dave Hirsch replied to Shannon Scott's comment.
Shannon Scott or lazy. Don’t forget Lazy!
Dave Hirsch replied to Pati Abbott's comment.
Thanks for this perspective, Pati.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Robin Greenberg could be May. I was riffing.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
What’s your point here Russ? Vague insinuations don’t help us collectively get to the truth.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's photo.
It begins!
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
SO glad to hear it!
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Many people would say that it's fully justified, science-based, and realistic "fear-mongering".

Adams sound reasonable but he neglects the very real feedback loops in the climate system that could push us from the relatively stable climate we have now to a relatively stable climate which is much hotter. When he says "Throughout all modern history, when we humans see a problem coming from far away, we have a 100% success rate in solving it," this sound comforting but is actually cherry-picking and misleading.

Cherry picking because he limits his consideration to "modern history" - why? Maybe because there are records of cultures that died out because they couldn't stop their practices that contributed to ecological damage?

Misleading because it is debatable whether we have seen the problem of climate change coming from far enough away. Also misleading because he gives no examples of the kind of species-wide problems that we saw coming during modern history from far away and solved. I'm not sure there are any. So perhaps rather than 100%, it should be 0%?

Finally, he has nice stories about how we'll all get some great CO2 capture systems going fast once we collectively decide that the problem is real. This relies on unproven assumptions about the ability for us as a species to spend a great deal of money and other resources to solve this diffuse problem at a time when the leaders of our country don't even admit there is a problem. So, he's rolling the dice that we will go against our recent history of behavior and if he's wrong then our descendants will, at least, live in much worse conditions than they do now.

Maybe the reason he pitches this towards kids is because it's a fairy tale.
Dave Hirsch replied to Roger Good's comment.
Polls show that Democratic voters are supporting her, not that the DNC is pushing her. By all means, be outraged that Democratic voters don't share your preferences in a candidate, but I don't think you can justify your allegation that the DNC is pushing her (by which I mean giving her an artificial boost).
Dave Hirsch replied to Roger Good's comment.
Roger Good I get the sense that the DNC, having been burned last time, is very sensitive to allegations of favoritism or picking winners in advance of the vote. Do you have evidence that they are pushing Warren in the sense of giving her a boost in some way? I'm not seeing that. I think that the Democratic primary voters are pushing Warren, as her rising poll numbers seem to indicate.
Dave Hirsch replied to Roger Good's comment.
Roger Good I disagree Roger. She’s unhappy that she’s not doing better but her complaints about the process are hollow.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
You know what? I think your points about hypocrisy are not totally off-base. I get that you all consider every stage of life a person from conception to deathbed. On that basis, there are some sizes that I and PP both consider of lesser value. As does most of our society. I think the key difference here is that PP doesn't consider those sizes (really developmental stages, but okay, fine, those more or less go together) to be fully human, and so they don't get the same rights as an independently living human.
I'm on board with that view, but I get that you all are not.

So, here you go: I was wrong to rant about the hypocrisy thing. Knock yourselves out.

https://tenor.com/SFTZ.gif
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Yay, Mom! Glad you are back to doing what you enjoy!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Ryan Hamstra Umm, no, that doesn't follow. Maybe they are killing them for a different reason than their size. You are assuming a reasoning for the observed actions that is not clear from the data you've provided. Perhaps it's related to their state of development, or location in the world, not size per se. Ways to test this: do their actions demonstrate a lack of value for all creatures of that size? Do they demonstrate a gradation of actions that can correlate to size across a wide range of sizes? For example, perhaps they also value infants less than toddlers - can you find actions to support that?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Ryan Hamstra That is not an explanation of Planned Parenthood's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy means saying one thing but doing its opposite. It does not mean doing something one doesn't like or believes to be immoral. Please try to be better at discussing things as if we were educated, rational beings.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sandy Cartwright's comment.
Sandy Cartwright trim nailer
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
“What they do” is about stage of development and physical relationship to other humans, not body size. I see no hypocrisy. If you do, please explain it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
In what way is this hypocrisy? Can you cite a quote where Planned Parenthood claims that fetuses have fewer rights due to their size (as opposed to the stage of development)?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch air driven nail gun
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Morgan Rumpf I know! I put my email on the list for when they are back in stock.

You might also like the author’s comic, http://oglaf.com/ (but some are very NSFW!)
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
I've never used one before today. Just installed a room full of baseboard (already cut and dry-fit) in a few minutes.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch yes I remember, and ummm...I’m at work? Don’t send me videos like this to watch and get emotionally mule-kicked by when I’m at work, please? (jk)
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
First day of taping and mudding. Very long day.
Dave Hirsch replied to Marilyn Lescoulie Hayes's comment.
Marilyn Lescoulie Hayes Laurel’s
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
One down; five to go!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a tool to lift a sheet of drywall up to the ceiling so you can screw it there. Otherwise it’s hard to drywall the ceiling by yourself.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joel O'Connor's comment.
Joel O'Connor You think I would do this on a rental?
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Marsha Hirsch's photo.
Happy anniversary, cousin!
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Whitney Klein I spotted him in one
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Damn, that’s a bummer Joel! I’m sorry to hear it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Oh Joel, I’m flattered.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Yes; I'm doing the whole thing.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
And look what came in my email today from Fine Homebuilding! So timely!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Jeez! Some people. SMH
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton You are misreading the meme and my point, and again are mixing up health insurance with health care. Do you have evidence to support your claim that California is giving free health care to "illegal immigrants"? What I see is that they are giving free health care to low-income people, *some of whom* are undocumented immigrants. The part I claim is false/misleading is that both you and the meme imply that *all* undocumented people are being offered free health care, when in fact only low-income undocumented people are. If you and the meme included the word "some", then I'd have no problem, and I'd call it factual.

Now to the meat of the policy: these people are going to get care, in our country, whether or not they can afford to pay. They got care twenty years ago, and ten years ago, and last year, and this year, and will be getting care ten years from now. That's because we aren't willing to let people die on our streets (which I see as a good thing). Because they cannot pay, and because their caregivers have to put food on their table, it means the rest of society is going to pay for their care. So, the only remaining question is: do you want to pay more for their care, or less? I choose less, and the best way to pay less for their care overall is to get them out of the emergency room and into a regular doctor's office. And the way to do that is to give them health insurance.

What is your preference for the undocumented mother with a sick child? What would your preferred policy have her do?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ obviously I don’t know the true rationale for that rule. And that is way off-topic from what your post was about or what my response was, which is always annoying when done to me.

That said, I can imagine people gaming the system by creating a “business” in order to get a business-type health insurance deal, and the rule requiring another employee would address that.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
Ed Hirsch I remember that the “table wine” in Italy was much better than that of France (20 years ago).
Dave Hirsch replied to Shannon Scott's comment.
Shannon Scott closet to two orders of magnitude. 😳
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Whitney Klein
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Whitney Klein
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch pretty stiff and sore
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch yes. Heading home now
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Ate after-race burritoughnut. Something between amazing and disgusting.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Done! Not too bad.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Love these!
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
This is false, or at least misleading, Russ. By posting this, you are perhaps conflating health insurance with health care, which, at some level, is free for all people in our country (meaning they can go to an emergency room and get care regardless of their ability to pay, just like you or me).

While it is true that some proposed plans will include health insurance for everyone in this country, it is only free for those who cannot afford to pay (so a well-off "illegal alien" would still be required to pay, and a poor US citizen would not). This is arguably the best way to keep health care costs down overall, since the poor family who takes their kid to the emergency room is costing all of us more than if they had taken her to the doctor's office a day earlier. Under our current system, we all pay for that family's care now, through elevated hospital costs, and indirectly elevated health insurance costs. I personally would prefer that the family incur smaller costs for us all to cover.

Are you suggesting that this family should not be eligible for health care, since they cannot pay for it? What should they do about their sick child?
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Wow! That’s crazy! Glad you’re okay.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
My two favorite ladies!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Thanks so much for taking pictures and posting them Mom!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Andrew Robinson Good idea; I’m in!
Dave Hirsch commented on Andrew Robinson's post.
Sawyer will be there
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Morgan Rumpf Things are good here. Miss you too! Hope you guys are well and happy, too! :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
It was supposed to be 4 miles. Tomorrow is supposed to be 6-8...we'll see.
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
This *was* the shorter run!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
So sorry things are starting off in a hard place for you, Mom! We all love you.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Yay pods!! Love you all!
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
I know, Gerry! Why don’t they stop? I’d like them to stop or at least slow down a little.
Dave Hirsch replied to Emily Borda's comment.
Emily Borda we saw Matt & the kids at drop-off! So glad there will be a bunch of friends together!
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Klein's post.
The boy in the plastic bubble ventures out into the disease-filled world...
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Well, Russ, no. Not all scientific studies are equal. These do not appear to be peer-reviewed (pretty much anybody can publish anything in arxiv.org). There is a very strong consensus among climate researchers about supporting the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change, backed by not only first principles but also by thousands of peer-reviewed research papers. For those of us who are not experts in any particular scientific field, consensus is the best guide to the hypothesis most likely to be true.
We can also use meta-data to gauge the strength of a scientific hypothesis: whether it's survived peer review, and the stature of the author(s). Digging in on these points here, the principle author is an undergraduate and the second author is a lecturer (not a professor). He/she doesn't list this paper on his/her webpage (https://www.utu.fi/en/people/pekka-malmi). That doesn't give me much confidence in this hypothesis, especially when it is contradicted by thousands of other papers.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Russ, everybody in these science fields knows about magnetic reversals, and shifting location of the geomagnetic pole over time. There is excellent data for geomagnetic reversals over geologic history, especially in the last 200 Million years or so (see the stripes here: https://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/timescale/timescl.pdf), and there is very good climate data. There is only weak correlation between the frequency of reversals and climate. There is pretty good correlation between CO2 and climate.
The key thing is not the motion of the pole, but the strength of the field in terms of possible climate effects.
Further, climate models already account for this factor, although they are continually refining of course.

So this data set does that change the fact that we are the problem.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
I loved it too!
Dave Hirsch commented on Rob Knode's post.
One of the perks of living in the County!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
No injuries at all.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
It went well! No permanent injuries. 😆
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's photo.
I fucking wish to fucking acknowledge this as the fucktastic day of your fucking birth. 😉🎉
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Weird that the photo included is a completely inoffensive one. Why didn’t they show the mural itself? Maybe because the position of the students would be less offensive and some of their readers might sympathize with the position and even understand how a black or native kid might be legitimately upset by it? Here’s a better news source for this issue, which includes images of the mural: https://www.sfchronicle.com/education/article/Fate-of-controversial-SF-high-school-mural-down-14008090.php
Dave Hirsch commented on Whatcom Family YMCA's photo.
Um... I have it on good authority that, actually, these citizens were the ones who had the idea, and they called their local congressman (Rep. McCoy) and he said, "You're right. It ought to be a law." And then he sat down and wrote it out and introduced it to Congress. 😉https://youtu.be/FFroMQlKiag?t=65
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
That’s great!
Dave Hirsch replied to Pati Abbott's comment.
Pati Abbott got about halfway through it. But we have (potentially) all the seasons of Glee now: they liked it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Pati Abbott's comment.
Pati Abbott we’ve seen them both.
Dave Hirsch replied to Amy Mossoff's comment.
Amy Mossoff they liked it!
Dave Hirsch replied to Mike Hughes's comment.
Mike Hughes Quick links for other topics:
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-public-lands-e4be1d88a01c
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-green-manufacturing-plan-for-america-fc0ad53ab614
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/no-president-is-above-the-law-f4812e580336
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/congressional-action-to-protect-choice-aaf94ed25fb5
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/its-time-to-reduce-corporate-influence-at-the-pentagon-98f52ee0fcf1
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/our-military-can-help-lead-the-fight-in-combating-climate-change-2955003555a3
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-comprehensive-plan-to-end-the-opioid-crisis-9d85deaa3ccb
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-provide-comprehensive-debt-relief-to-puerto-rico-f8b575a81b06
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-to-improve-our-military-housing-b1a46ba235b8
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-proposing-a-big-new-idea-the-real-corporate-profits-tax-29dde7c960d
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/elizabeth-warren-its-time-to-scare-corporate-america-straight/2019/04/02/ca464ab0-5559-11e9-8ef3-fbd41a2ce4d5_story.html?fbclid=IwAR00CoBBBRrkzYBqQo3i5Nv8HisRmW7FFwwm57P7hn501RVeKhllLNIgHXk&utm_term=.d04325353f04
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/leveling-the-playing-field-for-americas-family-farmers-823d1994f067
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/its-time-to-get-rid-of-the-electoral-college-20efcac09c5e
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-housing-plan-for-america-20038e19dc26
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/heres-how-we-can-break-up-big-tech-9ad9e0da324c
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/my-plan-for-universal-child-care-762535e6c20a
https://elizabethwarren.com/ultra-millionaire-tax/
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7

You're welcome. :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Mike Hughes's comment.
Mike Hughes You are using the wrong links on her page. Go to Recent Announcements and click the links at the top of each.

They lead you to pages like this: https://medium.com/@teamwarren/a-plan-for-economic-patriotism-13b879f4cfc7 Which include pretty detailed goal, plan, and priority statements like this:

"Taxpayers should be able to capture the upside of their research investments if they result in profitable enterprises. Like any investor, taxpayers should get a return on the risky investments they are making in R&D. That can take various forms. Taxpayers can: get an equity stake in any company that relies on intellectual property these investments create; retain royalties on publicly funded innovation or a golden-share of the patent revenue; or require the companies benefitting from publicly funded R&D to reinvest profits back into domestic production, R&D, and worker training programs, rather than into stock buybacks."
Dave Hirsch commented on Sarah Kellogg's photo.
Congratulations! Great to hear!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
That's nice of you, Mom. I'm sure they will appreciate it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Anthony McPherson's comment.
Tiana Galloway the government hasn’t funded abortions since 1977 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyde_Amendment
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
If you don’t print color much then a black&white laser printer is the best long-term deal. Plus the quality and speed are far better. I have a Brother that has been going strong for 10? years. Only purchased one new toner cartridge IIRC
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gary Bittner's post.
I totally had one of these and played it 'til it broke.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
It was pretty good. Some of what I expected, and a little bit of surprise, too.
Dave Hirsch replied to McKenna Bassett's comment.
Also His Dark Materials, to get those swords & sorcery folks.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
More broadly, I think the point is that memes like this exist mostly in a liberal social media echo chamber (I'm in the chamber myself - I have about two conservative Facebook friends). And so what we are doing here is getting all riled up and angry, which is fine as far as it goes. But we sometimes fail to realize that most of the electorate is not like us. And I don't (just) want to get angry, I want to effect positive change in the country, damnit. And the only long-term way to do that in my view, is convince those who are at least somewhat to the right of us. I am of the view that that kind of convincing is impossible with memes like this, which do not address the concerns of the more conservative members of the electorate.

I think this guy has a very good take on the issue: https://slate.com/technology/2010/11/what-pro-choicers-can-learn-from-the-princeton-abortion-conference.html
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Pete Stelling I totally agree with all these points. And I also think at the same time that ignoring the basic question at the core of the debate (when is a fetus deserving of rights) will cause us to always always lose. So if our goal is to actually achieve political change, rather than just rant to like-minded people about how fucked up the issue is, then I believe we have to engage with this basic question.
Because there are people who believe that these embryos are equal in status to children. And if you or I believed that, we would be taking the exact same positions they are! I would not want to be part of a society that allows parents to kill their children, and I don't think you would either, no matter the cost to the parents.
If we cannot address this fundamental question head-on, we will always lose at the ballot box on this issue, and in the courts (over a longer term).
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
Or when he's a Supreme Court Justice. >:( Or the governor of Alabama or Georgia. >:( Or...
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Happy birthday Max!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Stuart Hatfield could you elaborate?
Dave Hirsch commented on Pete Stelling's post.
You know, I've seen this post a number of times in the last day or two, and others kind of like it, and they make me sad and disappointed in us liberals. We need to argue better than this. Arguments like this one make it seem like the issue is black and white, like the other side is completely out of bounds, like it's only about women's bodies. I don't think that's the case, and I don't think that liberals actually believe that is the case. Furthermore, arguments like this will not win over the vast middle ground of Americans to our side.
Before I dive in, I want to emphasize that I think there should be no restrictions on abortion. I think abortion should be safe, legal, free, and rare (to adapt a Bill Clinton line). No child should come into the world who isn't 100% wanted by his or her parent(s). All decisions about gestation and child-bearing should be made by a woman, her partner if that's relevant, and her doctor.
But think about this: I think we all agree that once a baby is viable outside the womb, it should have some rights. I think that we would be horrified if a parent wanted to terminate a viable fetus without a fairly good reason. I think that we all agree that prior to fertilization, there are no rights. I think that most liberals would agree with me that in the moment after fertilization, the zygote should not have any rights. If you believe that the zygote has no rights, and the viable fetus has some rights, then what's in between? At some point the developing being must gain rights. We have to grapple with the idea that it is NOT just a matter of the woman's body, that there is another creature which has some rights at some point. I happen to believe that at all stages of development, a woman's rights outweigh those of the developing human, but others may not, and science doesn't provide a way to decide this question. We have to engage with the dilemma, have difficult discussions about it, tell stories to those on the other side of the argument to convince them.
By treating it in a simplistic way, we do a disservice to the gravity of the issue, and we will only show those on the other side that we don't care about their viewpoint, that we aren't thinking deeply about the topic. They will continue to stay entrenched in their position and will vote against us at the ballot box. This kind of thing is therefore counter-productive to achieving our political goals.
Dave Hirsch commented on Anastasia Kreager's post.
Chanterelle Trail! Not very strenuous, and nice view at the top.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
That would be fun! Would definitely need to practice.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Whitney Klein yes! 363-7991
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Jeremy Hirsch, Whitney Klein - Do you remember it too?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch Saturday
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jackie Caplan-Auerbach but we already more or less have such a category (high-testosterone competitors): men’s sports. I admit that I was surprised that there wasn’t a stronger testosterone effect in track and field, but I bet there are sports where the effect is much larger, and I think it makes sense to come up with a general standard (which might take into account the varying effect of testosterone in different sports).
I don’t have a recommendation, but I am suspicious of any simple answer because I think the issue is complex.
Here’s a question for you: when you say that separate but equal is a bad idea in sport, are you suggesting that there should be no men’s and women’s sports categories? Aren’t those separate but equal (as long as we don’t pay attention to salaries, etc.)?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch WatchGuard partners (like is) and distributors from North and South America. Watchguard makes the firewalls we use.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jackie Caplan-Auerbach's post.
There is a good RadioLab describing this incident and the long long history of gender determination in sports. I don’t think there is any simple answer here, and if you say anybody who lives their life as a woman can compete as a woman, you have to grapple with the alleged cases of USSR suspect athletes in the 60s as well as the (rare) impostors. How would you prefer that international sports bodies handle or prevent those kinds of cases? (https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/dutee)

I also don’t think there is a good parallel with Phelps or Bol, since there are not enough people to form a separate competing class of low-lactic-acid swimmers or (maybe) extremely tall basketball players. (Although one can argue that the latter has already happened)
Dave Hirsch replied to Pati Abbott's comment.
Pati Abbott I did!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Looks beautiful mom!
Dave Hirsch replied to Brady O'Brien's comment.
Brady O'Brien Watchguard international conference for the Americas! (Ended a couple hours ago)
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Hope it was a good event!! ❤️
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Finally landed in PR. 1 am local time. A long day of traveling. Luckily conference events don’t start until tomorrow afternoon.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Robert Mark Reed good idea. We’ll see how long we’re here.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Birds had hit the plane that was supposed to fly from DFW to PR. Stuck in DFW for a while at least. ☹️
Fucking birds.
Dave Hirsch replied to Lukas Pittman's comment.
I also recall when I found out this fact and my mind was blown, too. :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
In fact there is a kind of crossword puzzle where you have to also figure out where the black squares are, and the symmetry is a valuable tool in solving those.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
True-ish. Professionally made ones are (with rare exceptions). But anybody could make one that isn’t, and most people would recognize that thing as a “crossword puzzle”.
Dave Hirsch commented on Chris Thompson's post.
Group: Bruin Woods
Thanks!
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
Tom Weinstein Okay, good point.
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
Tom Weinstein I disagree about conservation of energy. They aren’t losing or creating energy, just moving it around. The perpetual motion argument is a better one.
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
Tom Weinstein from what I read, it does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. The overall energy of the universe still increases. That doesn’t exactly address your concern, I realize, and I’m a little skeptical as well. But wouldn’t it be cool if it were true?
Dave Hirsch commented on Keelia Jean's video.
So cute!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Morgan Rumpf's photo.
You’re awesome, Morgan! I’m sure it’s going to be a great year!❤️
Dave Hirsch commented on Bob Gaines's photo.
So you’re saying people should take my advice?
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Looks good Mom!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
This picture was taken right after first seeing the “showgirls”. Laurel is troubled.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Michael Davis I’m aware of this. I was being lazy. That doesn’t change my point.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger I agree that the notion of representing land is silly. Yet, isn't that what Baio is advocating, specifically when he writes things like "it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those who inhabit a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election"?

Who cares about the area - it's people that matter.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
By posting this, it appears that you are suggesting that what matters in a democracy is that the elected officials should be representing land, not people. Is that correct?
Dave Hirsch commented on Just For The Craic Hi.'s photo.
Porn (1980s-1990s)
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Oh, and if you are being intellectually consistent, then by the logic you and Hannity are using, (in which the lack of indictments indicates proof that nothing improper happened), you must conclude that nothing improper happened in a bunch of "scandals" that you seemed to care a lot about in the recent past, including:
- Uranium One
- Clinton's role in the Benghazi attack
- Hillary's email server
and, also: the Steele dossier.

So, which is it? Lack of indictments on a topic mean there's nothing to see there, or maybe we actually do have to judge for ourselves based on the contents of the investigation?

Or just maybe (and I think this is the most likely position you actually hold, based on your writing): lack of indictments mean everything's just fine, so long as it's your side being investigated, and when it's the other side being investigated, then we should have a different standard of judgement?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
You don't yet know what the FBI found, Russ, and neither does Sean Hannity. He is merely drawing inferences from the lack of further indictments. His inferences may indeed turn out to be correct, but at this time they are premature.

However, since you are so sure that there is nothing incriminating in the report, I'm sure you will be eager to have it released in full to the public, right?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
But, you know, I hope you're right. I hope that there was no collusion. I hope that Trump was just bullshitting when he asked the Russians to hack the emails of a presidential candidate. It sucks that they did so on that very day, but I hope that we don't have a Manchurian Candidate president, because that would be a very bad thing.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
The absence of an indictment doesn't mean "no collusion", because Mueller might well be following DoJ policy which is that sitting presidents are not to be indicted. If we ever see the report, we'll be able to judge for ourselves.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Hannity doesn't claim to have read the report either. He's just guessing and/or blowing smoke.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Ah, so, you've seen what's in the report? I thought it was pretty tightly held. I haven't heard that it was released to the public.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
What do you mean by "Nothing!", Russ?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
""No, but a vacuum is likely not the same as whatever came before our universe." - which was nothing" Do you have evidence for this claim that what came before our universe was "nothing"?

""Whatever was before our universe is unknowable... We don't know and cannot know." - We can know and do know, because God made it" I disagree with this claim that God made it. Do you have evidence for this claim that God made the universe, evidence other than your Book? Do you have evidence as to the physical nature of reality, pre-Universe?

"I think it's a bit moot to say that nothing initiated, started, *insert your term of choice here* everything." I don't believe I ever said that. You keep attempting to put those words in my mouth, but I don't think I've agreed to them. If you continue to mischaracterize my position, then I am not going to continue this discussion.

"then you are essentially saying, "I am correct because I say I am correct" - I never made myself the arbiter of truth, nor have I said I'm right because I say I'm right" - You misunderstood my point. I didn't really mean you, Courtney, are saying that; I meant your religion is doing so. The religion (through you) says "I am the true religion". I ask the religion (through you) to prove it. The religion says, "My book says so!". But the religion wrote that book, so the religion is saying "I am the true religion because this book that I wrote says so". That, to me, is basically "I'm correct because I say I am correct".

"I have a foundation for truth because someone (God) greater than me has revealed these things to me in his scripture, and everyone else has this revelation of him by his creation, and if they have access to his word." - But I don't accept your fictional God, and I don't accept the truth of your Book, so anything you marshal along those lines to convince me, is worthless to me.

""Anything from inside your religion saying it is the special one is just more of your religion making the claim to be special, not outside evidence." - no, because we can look at the source." No, Courtney, we cannot look at the source, because you and I disagree about the source. When you look at the source, you perceive an omniscient creator. When I look at the source, I see a fictional entity created by humans long ago. You reasonably believe that your source is correct, and I have grave doubts about that. And that is why any religious evidence for the truth of the religion is circular.

"See, you can't make any factual claims because we can just follow the rabbit hole of "who says this is true?" If in your example, Dave is the source, we can know it's not Dave because Dave doesn't know everything" Okay, fair point. In that case, let's consider an alternate religion that has an omniscient god. I'm not much of a religious scholar, but Shiva is often supposed to be omniscient it seems. So, Hinduism says that Shiva is all-knowing, and although Hinduism appears to be fairly diverse theologically, there are some exclusivist strains. So, that means there are Hindu writings from an omniscient God that says your God is false. Now it's not fallible Dave who is saying your God is fiction, but omniscient Shiva. How are you going to settle that dilemma?

"for 1, it's because it's not the God of the universe that we all know through his revelation, but 2 because they can't reveal themselves because they're all either engraved images (material) or some knock off of the God of the bible. Or, no god: i.e. - you're your own god whether you see it that way or not" - So who made you the arbiter of what counts as a good enough deity? And how does the fact that other religions don't measure up in your eyes count as them "falling at their knees"?

""I don't see why I should believe in something without evidence. That doesn't seem to me to be good for me personally, or for humanity in general." - but how can you know that for sure?" I don't claim to know that for sure. That's why I wrote "seem to me". But I can certainly make my own judgements for what I choose to believe, just as you can.

"Why are you arguing if something is good or not if you can't even make a certain claim that something IS good?" I'm not actually. The "good" thing is not core to my argument. I choose not to believe in things without evidence. That fits with my personal value system. I do not begrudge you your choice to believe without having what I would consider evidence.

""Here you quoted me stating words I did not write. That is not cool." - it's been a bit too far back for me to remember, but I'm pretty sure I copy/pasted this" - The full text of our exchange is right here on this page, stored nicely by Facebook so we can refer to it. What you quoted me as saying is not there.

"so in your worldview, there is no real morality or immorality" - Again, you are mischaracterizing my position. I do believe that there is morality, just that it need not come from a fictional creator or some book. I understand it must be nicer to argue with somebody who holds stupid ideas like "there is not right or wrong", but perhaps you might consider finding out whether I actually hold that view before chastising me for espousing it?
Dave Hirsch replied to Megan McGinnis's comment.
Potentially. Also, here is a good podcast on this general topic (on background, not specifically about your example): https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/109-facebook-spying
Dave Hirsch replied to Megan McGinnis's comment.
Or did you mention it to anybody before the ad came up? Even if you didn't search the web for it, if they did, it could have gotten linked to you.
Dave Hirsch replied to Megan McGinnis's comment.
Ooh! That is weird then. Some stores are using a new technology to track where in the store people go, based on a kind of micro-triangulation with wifi hot spots. Maybe Michaels is doing that? (http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hubfs/325181/The_Truth_on_In-Store_Analytics_WiFi_iBeacon_and_Video_in_Retail.pdf)
Dave Hirsch replied to Megan McGinnis's comment.
Also, it wouldn't be Visa/MC/AMEX that is selling your data in this case; it would be Michaels.
Dave Hirsch replied to Megan McGinnis's comment.
Did you buy it with a credit card? If so, there's probably a profile of you or your device that links your credit card with your other online profile details and boom: you get ads for something you just bought (thanks, internet: that's genius).
Dave Hirsch commented on Megan McGinnis's post.
Did the store where you got it specialize in those things? It probably knew you were there via GPS and / or device fingerprinting.
Dave Hirsch commented on Mathew Satuloff's post.
Silly!😆
Dave Hirsch commented on Beth Rusk's photo.
Excited to have you all closer again!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
"So if we set up a vacuum that verifiably had 0 molecules in it, and it had billions of years to sit, eventually we would see life in that vacuum?" - No, but a vacuum is likely not the same as whatever came before our universe.

"How is that different than everything came from nothing? At least in this case, there's already an existing world around this vacuum. Nothing is nothing, if there is something there, then it's not nothing. It's a logical fallacy" - I disagree. Whatever was before our universe is unknowable. Maybe it was nothing in the sense you mean, but maybe it wasn't. We don't know and cannot know. And please be clearer about the logical fallacy you think I'm making in my argument.

""How can you prove that your God is real, and theirs are all fictional?" - because he revealed Himself to us, no other god has." - This is patently false. All the other gods have revealed themselves to their believers in exactly the same way yours has revealed himself to you. They all have books or other official words from their deity describing the way that their god is true and others, including yours, are false.

""You cannot cite your book as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your book." - who made you the arbiter of truth?" - Nobody, but it appeared you were trying to convince me of the truth of your religion. If you are trying to convince me of the truth of your religion, and your response is that your religion's book says that your religion is the True one, then you are essentially saying, "I am correct because I say I am correct". And at that point we aren't having a debate anymore, and I walk away, unconvinced and unimpressed.

"I have the same outside evidence that you do, and I already cited it to you: Romans 1:18." - That's not outside evidence, that's inside evidence. If I claim I am actually a space alien, and I give you as evidence a paper I wrote stating "Dave is a space alien", you should say that's not evidence, it's just you making the claim. Anything from inside your religion saying it is the special one is just more of your religion making the claim to be special, not outside evidence.

"Other religions can point to a god as their origin but they very quickly fall at their knees." What do you mean by "other religions fall at their knees"? If it's a claim of objective truth, not just a subjective opinion, please provide evidence (again, something other than your religion claiming it's the bestest specialest one of all, and that all the others are sucky).

"With atheism, you can't make a single knowledge claim because you have no foundation. To do so you would have to borrow from my worldview (I realize now I didn't answer this for you the first time, so I can circle back to this if you'd like). You have no possible way to make a certain knowledge claim." Finally, something good to discuss! You're right. I cannot claim to know for certain that no God exists. Just as you cannot know for certain that one does exist. That is why it is called faith. I choose to believe that no God exists because I have seen no evidence for one, and I don't see why I should believe in something without evidence. That doesn't seem to me to be good for me personally, or for humanity in general.

""I claim you just lack sufficient imagination." - so our reality is based on imagining something to happen that we cannot prove?" - No. I was just saying that when you make a claim along the lines of, "I cannot imagine a way in that our universe could exist without a designer", it is not valid to then conclude "therefore there must have been a designer". *That* is a logical fallacy, because it presumes that you are able to imagine every possibility within a reality (lacking of a better term for whatever pre-dated our universe) that is not our own. I was not arguing that "our reality is based on imagining" anything.

You wrote: "you end up contradicting your own point. You say "this complex structure is sort of silly to happen on it's own bc it needs a designer, but this one doesn't"" - Here you quoted me stating words I did not write. That is not cool.

"What makes the Maserati a silly example?" - I answered this right there in black and white. It's right after the words "that is a silly question, because". If that justification is insufficiently clear, please be more specific as to what part you didn't understand.

"Can you point me to what materials in our brain make up "justice"?" - I don't think we have a good enough understanding of the brain to fully point to which neurons and connections embody a simpler concept like "dog", much less "justice". However, our inability to do so does not mean that such ideas are not embodied in our brains. The fact that some concepts and skills are lost during some kinds of brain injury supports the idea that these things do have physical embodiments in our brains.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lauren Blatt Kirsch's post.
Thanks, Lauren!
Dave Hirsch commented on Noli Gershman Wiesen's post.
Thanks, Noli!
Dave Hirsch commented on Laura Fox Cresswell's post.
Thanks, Laura!
Dave Hirsch commented on Megan Merritt's post.
Thanks Megan!
Dave Hirsch commented on Rebecca Solomon Means's post.
Thanks Becky! Miss you guys!
Dave Hirsch commented on Matteo Sordi's post.
Thanks Matteo
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Metter's post.
Thanks Adam!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jorge Ancona's post.
Thanks, Jorge!
Dave Hirsch commented on Kelly Ness's post.
Thanks, Kelly!
Dave Hirsch commented on Ashley Metter Fremont-Smith's post.
Thanks, Ashley!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
Message received. :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Joanne Salustri Cherep's post.
Thanks, Joanne!
Dave Hirsch commented on Scott Kilkenny's post.
Thanks, Scott!
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Resnick's post.
Thanks, Adam!
Dave Hirsch commented on Viva Barnes's post.
Thanks, Viva!
Dave Hirsch commented on Mel Mitchell's post.
Thanks, Uncle Mel!
Dave Hirsch commented on Tom Weinstein's post.
Thanks, Tom!
Dave Hirsch commented on Beverly Barkan Mitchell's post.
Thanks, Aunt Bev!
Dave Hirsch commented on David M Zvonec's post.
Thanks, Dave!
Dave Hirsch commented on Anya Binsacca's post.
Thanks, anya!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joumana Youssef's post.
Thanks, Joumana!
Dave Hirsch commented on Dwayne Rogge's post.
Thanks, Dan.
Dave Hirsch commented on Hannah Schell's post.
Thank you Hannah! I hope the decade includes a visit at some point
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Basically. Miss you, Morgan!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
"I'm guessing with your first and second paragraph that you believe in some sort of deity then to kickoff things?" - No, I do not. I cannot rule that out though, since we have no information about what leads to the creation of universes. We are like the critters inside a simulation: there is no way for them to know about how the simulation got started. (And please don't say that since in our world simulations only get made by intelligent creators, that means I believe there must have been an intelligent creator of our universe. My point is that there is no way to know. Maybe there was a creator who set up our universe and then was hands-off from that point forward, or maybe this Big Bang thing is all there is, and it "just happened". Or maybe time is a loop, and at the end of our universe, it will all start again, forever, without any creator to set it up. Or maybe every universe that could happen, does happen, without a creator to cause it, just because that's what happens in the metaverse. We *cannot* know.)

"Otherwise you would have to claim contradiction that nothing created everything" - No, there is no contradiction. You are stuck in your language by the word "created". That word implies your conclusion (there was an intelligent creator). Which is why I used the word "arise": something can arise with an intelligent agent causing it, but also without. A storm can arise without an intelligent agent causing it. This statement of yours shows you didn't understand my analogy to Conway's Game of Life. With randomness and some feedback, things (even big, persistent ones) can just arise in a complex system. Like a storm can. There's no evidence that a storm is created by an intelligence. The same thing could be true of our whole universe, or parts of it.

"How do you explain the differing conclusions that various cultures have arrived at by observing the same natural world?" - "Mans rebellion and intent to flee from God and pursue their own sinful desires by creating their own type of god to worship" - So, every other religion except yours "created their own God". How can you prove that your God is real, and theirs are all fictional? You cannot cite your book as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your book. Almost all the (to-you) false religions have books, too; their books say that your religion is false. You cannot cite your dogma (Jesus, Holy Spirit, etc.) as evidence, because I do not accept the truth of your dogma. They all have dogma, too, and that dogma says that your religion is false. You need outside evidence to show that yours is true and theirs are all false. Got any?

"I have a couple questions for you too. If this deity only creates the big bang in relation to your example of Conway's Game of Life, how could design and complex structures come from randomness and chaos?" - Again, your language pre-supposes your desired conclusion. When you say "design" exists in the natural world, you are pre-supposing a designer. I do not accept that. Just because you cannot imagine the natural world without a designer doesn't mean that is the case. I claim you just lack sufficient imagination.

"If I had enough time, could I blow up materials enough times and at some point have a Maserati?" This is kind of a vague question, but I'll do my best. Yes, if you have enough time, and all the atoms, they will eventually form a Maserati. But that is a silly question, because the time involved is extremely long, and that kind of random assembly of very large, complex items strictly via randomness and trial and error is not what I claim is going on, nor is it what any intelligent person is claiming (again, see: Straw Man Argument). The better point is that in a complex system, with randomness and energy, complex structures may arise without being created intentionally. The storm example above is a decent one. Weather is a complex system, with randomness and energy, while at the same time being governed by some basic rules (physics). The results include complex structures in the atmosphere (e.g., thunderstorms, tornadoes), and these structures do not need anyone to make them appear. Something analogous is what I believe produces all the contents of the universe, including us, and probably also the universe itself (but I have no evidence for the universe part - it's just my hunch).

"And I forget the term, materialist? Naturalist? The belief that everything is material and there is no such thing as the immaterial (such as souls)..but is that something you believe is true or do you believe that people have a soul/spirit?" Definitely materialist. No souls, no spirit. Before I was born, there was no "me", and after I'm dead, there will be no "me" once again.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Thanks, Mom! Love you, and I know you would be up here if you could. You’ll be with us in spirit.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton Here is an argument against voter ID laws: very poor or homeless people, and very old people often do not have identification. My grandmother who was in a nursing home for the last part of her life did not have a valid ID for much of that time. Should she be denied the right to vote? Voting is a right, not a privilege, and it is among the most precious in our democracy. Removing the rights of such people to vote violates the most basic tenets of our democracy. Your claim that "If you can't figure out a way to get an ID in two years, you are too stupid to vote anyway" is offensive, and I hope that when you are very old and with limited mobility, and limited access to government resources, you will continue to be afforded the right to vote, even if you can't manage to get yourself a valid ID.

It is not the case the only those who have means get to participate in our democracy.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger The fact that you and California can't say whether non-citizens voted does not provide evidence that non-citizens voted. Do you have evidence that in-person voter fraud is anything but miniscule? The fact that a highly edited video, which O'Keefe refuses to release the entirety of, includes an operative appearing to claim that in-person voted fraud is possible, does not constitute evidence that such fraud has occurred. I reiterate that big powerful Federal committees have tried to marshal such evidence, and failed. This, to me, suggests that such evidence does not exist.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Courtney Hicks I suppose I would have to be called agnostic, but only in the sense that the evidence allows for a deistic creator. I am agnostic about a creator who sets up the fundamental constants of the universe and starts the Big Band. I emphatically disbelieve in a creator who created the complex structures we see in the world (including life) and even more strongly disbelieve in a creator who continues to intervene in the universe around us.

For the minecraft example: I was responding to your comments about my citation of Conway's Game of Life. You said the fact that somebody has to set up the rules of the simulation means that, by analogy, I'm supporting a creator. I was countering that, no, you were claiming that God didn't merely set up the system of the world (a deistic creator) but actually created its contents (a judeo-christian creator). My point (in the Conway comment above) was, and is, that in a complex system, you can get complex structures that arise without a creator creating them. There must be preconditions for such arisings (if that's a word), but there need not be intelligence behind them. So, I reiterate that an intelligence is not necessary for complex structures, just a universe with appropriate preconditions. Such a universe might be setup by an intelligent creator, but there is no evidence to require a creator for the setup of such a universe. (And neither your faith nor the existence of the universe around us counts as evidence).

As for your claim that "God has made his attributes clear to us ... in the things that have been made": First, it's far from clear to me. Second, are you suggesting that humans can perceive the nature of God in the natural world around us? If so, how do you explain the differing conclusions that various cultures have arrived at by observing the same natural world? Which of these is the correct version of God? Yours? How do you justify that, if so?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Time Bandits FTW! I should watch this with the kids. I think it's basically PG, right? It's been a long time.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
So all countries that ban guns will have massive power outages? Is that the claim you are making here, Russ? Or all countries that ban guns will be socialist authoritarian regimes? If you make a clearer point rather than just subtly implying things, we can have a better discussion.
Dave Hirsch commented on Ariella Salinas Fiore's photo.
I would write a note, including your contact information and leave it on the cars. But make it a nice note. Imagine that they are doing this by accident and they truly don’t know it’s posing a problem for you or anyone else. (Not because that’s the case but because they are likely to respond better if written that way).
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson Ah, I see. The problem with that construction is that it assumes that the person who is "good" today, will still be "good" tomorrow. I don't believe that. I believe that people can change for the better and for the worse, so I don't accept your splitting the world into immutably "good" and "bad" people.

But to the main point you were commenting on, I will restate: "I also feel the data in the FBI report do not support the implication (mainly in the linked article) that guns are generally a good thing, and the further implication that if only more law-abiding people had guns, we'd be better off as a society."
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
An old advisee wanted help with thermodynamics software I used to be good at.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson I do not disagree with the assertion that an ID is needed to vote in Mexico. And as for the data on voter fraud, there should be lots of data: it is a crime after all. We track lots of crimes. Here is one dataset: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast

And I think the burden of proof should be on your side: your side is the one making allegations of something happening in large enough numbers that we need to do something about it. In fact, wasn't there a blue-ribbon voter fraud panel setup by Trump and led by Kris Kobach? They had the full power of the federal government to collect all this data, IIRC. Hmm...what did they find again? Oh, right: "Investigations, including ones by Mr. Kobach and the Justice Department under President George W. Bush, turned up scant evidence of fraud." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/us/politics/trump-voter-fraud-commission.html
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson How did you draw that conclusion from my words? That is not what I meant at all.
Actually, I don't even understand what part of what I wrote you are responding to; it's like you read something else and responded here. Odd.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Seriously? The rate of in-person voting fraud such as this statement alleges, is vanishingly small. And that coupled with the unfounded allegation of non-citizens voting, seems unjustified by evidence.

Finally, Russ, I’m surprised that your side wants to bring attention to the issue of election fraud, given the Republican’s illegal actions in NC.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I feel that the headline here is misleading because:
- This is not an FBI statement
- It's not supporting the 2nd Amendment

And I also feel the data in the FBI report do not support the implication (mainly in the linked article) that guns are generally a good thing, and the further implication that if only more people had guns, we'd be better off as a society.
Dave Hirsch commented on Maureen Twomey's post.
AFAIK, most of these laws being proposed rely on the Federal government allowing it, which the original DST legislation prohibits (except for AZ, because f-ing AZ whined like a baby back in the 40s or something). So, for any state that passes a bill of this sort, it's kind of a as-soon-as-we're-allowed-to-do-it-we're-there kind of thing.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
From that report (not a "statement", and not really "pro-2nd amendment"):
Out of the FIFTY active shooter incidents the report looked at in 2016-2017:
"In four incidents, citizens possessing valid firearms permits successfully stopped the shooter. In two [of these] incidents, citizens exchanged gunfire with the shooter. In [another] two incidents, the citizens held the shooter at gunpoint until law enforcement arrived. In one incident, a citizen possessing a valid firearms permit exchanged gunfire with the shooter, causing the shooter to flee to another scene and continue shooting."
Other parts of this allegedly "Pro-2nd Amendment" FBI document, published a year ago:
There were 943 casualties including 221 people killed.
Eight shooters were stopped by citizens (including the four stopped by citizens with guns.

So...just as many shooters were stopped by citizens without guns as were stopped by citizens with guns. And in this "pro-2nd amendment" report, we find that the guns of the shooters killed or wounded 943 people in just two years.

So: Yay, 2nd Amendment. You are the best of all amendments. 🤮
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Courtney, I agree with you, partly, on the third point: the data that we have allows for a deistic creator: one who sets up the system and then is hands-off from there forward. I allow that is possible, but not, in my view, required. Nevertheless, that is not what you or the article are talking about, if I understand both correctly. You were talking about a creator who intentionally creates what we see around us (the "complex structures" in your earlier quote), not one who sets up a system that might lead to what we see around us, or might lead to something very different, perhaps something that lacks life altogether.
And when you say "something far more vast and elaborate and clearly not accidental or random in design," I disagree with the term "clearly". I don't think you or I can make judgements about what led to our universe. We have a sample size of one, and we are not equipped to know what is likely or unlikely in the universe-creation business, so there's no way to know if this universe is just what happens, or if it was designed in some way, or if there's an infinite number of universes, and we just happen to be in this one, or if there's something else even weirder going on.
So, I am an atheist because I see no evidence to support the existence of a creator. The complex structures do not require a creator, as I detailed earlier. The system we see within which these structures exist allows for, but does not require a creator.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
First, Courtney, I think you and I have different understanding of the meaning of "literally". I believe it means the plain and actual meaning of the words and phrases involved, without analogies to other ideas or concepts. What do you think it means? Or perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by "This" in your sentence "This is quite literally reality". I thought you meant the article. Maybe you meant something else?

Second, if I'm misunderstanding you, please clarify. That clarification will be more instructive for me if you can explain it with specific quotes of your words and mine to show where I've gone wrong in my interpretation of your writing.

Now to the main point: what I'm saying is that complex structures can arise, but not out of "nothing", and they do not "build themselves": there must be preconditions that allow for complexity to arise. One can create a virtual environment with interacting agents, each following fairly simple rules, and complex structures can arise. The more complex the rules, and the more randomness in the system (up to a point), the more likely it is that complex structures will arise, especially if there is feedback in the system. An almost-trivial example of this is Conway's Game of Life, in which structures may appear and persist for a time, simply with a little randomness and some simple rules. These structures don't "build themselves" as you say, but they do arise without any external agent making them specifically (an external agent does, however, need to set up the system within which they arise, at least in this case). Here's a good online example to play with: http://www.degeneratestate.org/posts/2015/Jan/10/games-of-life/
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Wow. Okay. So you are saying that this is "literally reality", which generally is not what we mean by "satire". If I'm not mistaken, it was just days ago that you were arguing we should not be taking anything from this website seriously because it was satire.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "literally reality". Do you mean that you believe this Myron Bassett lives in Auburn, WA, and has been playing Minecraft and waiting patiently with an empty world for structures to build themselves? Really? They don't provide evidence for the literal accuracy of this report, and a basic people search online suggests that no such person exists.
And this is absolutely a straw man argument, meaning one that makes a caricature of your opponent's position so you can more easily attack it. I'm an atheist, and I do not believe that complex structures build themselves out of nothing in the sense of this piece. That would be stupid (which is why it makes reasonably good satire).
Finally, please describe how my claiming it's a straw man argument means I'm "borrowing from your worldview". I don't see it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
😆 Straw man arguments are *hilarious*! 😕
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
I hope you get it, Jeremy!
Dave Hirsch commented on Beth Rusk's post.
I will ask Laurel
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Courtney Hicks Okay, so everything from the Babylon Bee is satire; thanks for pointing that out. But do you actually believe the claim? When I see satire, I don't defend it because it's not meant to be interpreted as making a literal claim. You, however, are defending the literal interpretation of the claim, suggesting that you don't think it's satire.

Let's clear this up: Do you now believe that AOC's writings suggest that she has authoritarian tendencies? If so, please quote anything. Even one quote. Just one. Because you claim that it exists, and I claim it doesn't. If you would like to convince me, you will have to prove that such a quote exists (I can't prove a negative). Since you are so sure that you're right, you must have at least one piece of evidence for it, right? You obviously can't be using the Babylon Bee piece as evidence, because (wait for it...) it's *satire*.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Snark != satire
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
This is what yours looks like. Nothing that says "satire", explicitly or implicitly.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
It's not fair to put something up that doesn't sound satirical at all, and then, defend it seriously, and then when cornered, say, "Haha just kidding."
And "go find evidence for my argument yourself" is what people say when they have no evidence.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
So, you're saying (with no evidence) maybe if she had power she would be authoritarian? One could say that about any politician. And even your point is pretty weak. What about her words (if they became actions) are authoritarian? Quote me something, please.
Meanwhile, there is actually evidence for authoritarian tendencies and actions taken by the president, and yet you haven't spoken out about that. He has taken steps to concentrate power in the executive. He has worked to bypass the normal legislative process. He has tried to silence opposing points of view. But from you: crickets. Interesting.
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
In what way is this authoritarian? How is she attempting to concentrate power in an executive? How is she trying to bypass the normal legislative process to enact her policies? How is she trying to silence opposing points of view?
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
Adam Klein they are the White Walkers
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch Yeah. It’s rough here.
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jason Fiber's post.
Probably Lisa. It was released in 1981. Probably written in 1980. The girls in this kind of music are about 17. The top girl baby name of 1963 was Lisa.
🤯
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Actually, I believe that a child's home environment does very strongly influence their path in life. I was never arguing for random chance. However, I believe that "home environment" includes the financial position of their parents, including the overall wealth of the neighborhood and the attendant funding and quality of schools, and the material intergenerational transfer of wealth from parents to children, and a host of other material opportunities that differ depending on the parent's financial position in life, in addition to the advice and guidance they receive, whereas you appear to believe that only guidance matters. But perhaps I'm mischaracterizing your position? David Nicholson certainly was arguing for that position, but reading back, I'm not sure you were.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell I agree that some policy decisions are not easily guided by data, and abortion is one of those. I disagree that if person A's experience says that the truth is one thing, and person B's experience says that the truth is another, then policy should be in the middle. We should use data to find out what the truth is, and be guided by it.

Here's a good example: many lefties believe that GMO foods are bad for your health; many others do not. This is a question that is answerable with data, and policy should be guided by that answer, not by some vague middle ground between dangerous and safe.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell I do value wisdom in a personal sense. But when different members of our society (and for the purposes of discussion we can omit college students since you seem to have a problem with them) have different policy ideas that are guided by their individual wisdom, what are we to do? I suggest that data is a better option, for those policy decisions that can be guided by data. To circle back around to where we started here: if my grandfather’s wisdom (he didn’t go to college) taught me that most poor people are poor due to circumstances beyond their control, and your wisdom says otherwise, one of us is wrong and that person’s wisdom, life experience, and common sense has led them to a false conclusion. In that case we’re stuck unless we turn to data.

It was once possible for a person’s wisdom and common sense to tell them that the Earth is flat, that it is the center of the universe, and that disease comes from bad air. None of those things were true.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell there is literally one “if” in my comment.
And I’m not saying that data drives policy, especially lately, but that it *should* do so. That’s what I meant by the word “prefer” in my comment.
And the Muslim thing seems like a distraction from the discussion we were having. If not, perhaps you can explain the relevance to me?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell I don’t care about wisdom (whatever that means in the context of this discussion). I care about facts and data, which should always guide policy. We may think that common sense can reveal to us what is true, but there are lots of times that has failed to be the case. That dude who published a book may be foolish compared to the 50-year old family man, but if the book cites data in support of its claims and the man cites only his gut feeling, I’d prefer we base policy decisions on the book.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell It's unclear what "the opposing view" would be. Please define the claim you would like me to support.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell That is not evidence. Please cite a source for your statistics
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
You are overqualified, but sure, come up to the land of skiing in one's own driveway.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell you write “A child born into the bottom 10% (income) with two loving and supportive parents have a fantastic chance, provided he’s not taught self destructive behaviors.“

Can you support that claim with any evidence?
Dave Hirsch replied to Christian Opfer's comment.
If you're interested, PM me.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Glad to hear it!
The Bellingham gang will be happy to be going someplace without snow. This is the view outside today:
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson Well, with your MA in Econ, you appear to have gotten the quintiles flipped around. :) Kids born into the richest quintile Q5 have only an 11% chance of ending up in the poorest as adults, and have a much better than average chance (30%) of living in the top quintile as adults.

And actually, the poverty line is pretty close to the top of Q2. So what this really means is that about half of the people born into poverty (Q1 & Q2) stay in poverty as adults. Regardless, I stand by my assertion that your experience (poverty to 1%) is not typical.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Here's some evidence to support my assertion that your experience is not typical. A serious study (http://csweb.brookings.edu/content/research/essays/2014/saving-horatio-alger.html) shows that only 10% of kids born into the lowest 20% (Q1) of income will end up in the top 20% (Q5) on income as adults. I've attached the relevant graph here. (Here's a writeup of their data sources: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2014/08/21/saving-horatio-alger-the-data-behind-the-words-and-the-lego-bricks/)
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson Do you have evidence to support your assertion that your experience (pulling yourself up from poverty to the 1%) is the typical experience, either for 1-percenters or children of poverty? I would like to see it if so.

Also, you seem to be really angry about this topic.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson Glad to hear you've pulled yourself up by your bootstraps; that doesn't mean your experience is typical.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson I disagree; it's like saying that a person who can't throw or run with a ball can't be a good offensive coordinator. The quality of one's ideas about a topic are not necessarily related to one's experience.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell Cool, well, I think you are the exception, not the rule. What do you mean by "privilege" in your statement "some privilege is earned by your parents and that's okay"?

Oh, and I also forgot to ask about any of these kinds of financial help that people might get from their parents:
- investing in your business
- watching your sick kid so you don't have to take time off work
- handing down needed items as gifts (their old car, furniture, etc.)
- giving you a first job at the family business
- getting you a first job where they work or from someone they know

And none of these things are bad! It's good for parents to help their kids! I have college savings funds for my kids and so do everyone I know. Do you? Are you helping your own kids get off to a good start in life, materially? Or just advice and motivation?

My point is that while I can help my kids in these concrete ways, a person who is struggling probably can't. This means that his kids and my kids don't start off with equal opportunities in life. And, circling back to the original point, this means that his kid's credit score (etc.) doesn't reflect only the choices that she makes, but also the poor start she got in life.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell Okay, cool. Would love to pick this up again when you have more time to answer those questions about the help you received from your parents.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell So you got zero help from your parents or grandparents at all, other than advice and motivation? No loans, no help paying for school, nothing at all concrete once you were 18? No family connection to decent first job? No help with your first down payment on a house? No inheritance from grandparents or parents? If so, I think you are the exception not the rule. I have definitely had help, and I think most people do get help.

You asked "Why would a Chinese investment be central to your argument?" It's not, which is why I put the work "say" in there. Just making the point that very rich people have a different set of financial choices than you or I (making an assumption here that you are middle-class).

You write "only 3% of America’s top 10% of earners was in that group the prior year." I'm not sure I believe this - do you have a citation so I can check the source? But even if it's true, I'm not talking about income, I'm talking about wealth. And wealth is much more stable.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell No, of course the choices we make matter. But
not everyone has the same set of choices: while you may wisely choose to invest part of your income, someone who can barely put food on the table doesn't have investment as a choice. Similarly, it might be a really good financial idea for a person to buy, say, a business in China. While I don't know you, I would guess that's not in your set of financial choices.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell No, I'm suggesting that wealth (not mobility) is linked with (not dependent upon) your parents' wealth. Can it be you're denying that? Do you believe that the kids of middle-class parents and the kids of poverty-level parents, and the kids of millionaire parents all have an equal chance of being poor, middle-class, or rich?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell that’s true but there’s a strong connection between the wealth one has, the wealthy of one’s parents, and the financial difficulties one experiences. I don’t think any of those is connected to the wisdom of one’s ideas, do you?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Is just that you don’t sufficiently care whether it’s false to even check something this silly, or are you actively trying to pollute the discussion, Russ?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's photo.
Let’s think about what you’re really saying here, Russ. You’re suggesting that anyone who has had financial difficulties isn’t fit to serve on this committee. This would mean that only rich folks would get input into government policy on financial matters. Given that most of our country is not rich, that is a profoundly undemocratic view to hold.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lori Nash's post.
House of Leaves is the scariest book I’ve ever read. It’s not an easy Stephen King-ish read though. (I’m not knocking King-I like him, too)
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I was confused because there are two Northam “scandals” happening right now. I think the infanticide one is silly. I think the blackface one is legitimate.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ, I did read both the links you posted. The first was about how the Democrats were supposedly for infanticide. I think that’s a willful misunderstanding of Northam’s comments as I stated above. The second was somebody asking Pelosi about Northam’s statement and she dodged by claiming she hadn’t seen it. Maybe that’s a lie on her part.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ who is changing their minds? I’m not.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Also, let’s be clear that Northam was not talking about infanticide. He never said the word. He was talking about whether to take extraordinary measures to preserve the life of a severely compromised newborn infant, or to let a non-viable infant die naturally with all comforting measures possible. I think that’s a legitimate discussion to have. Do you disagree?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger it sure seems like Democrats are calling for his resignation. What sources suggest that we aren’t? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/us/politics/ralph-northam-virginia-governor.html
“... facing pressure from his own party to resign...”
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Most Americans do not agree that legal abortion is infanticide, Russ. (That's why it's legal)
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Brandon Hills Interesting questions. Here are my responses:

"If you were to analyze that flake of skin what species does it come from?" - Homo sapiens. Not sure what your point is. That doesn't make the skin flake itself a person, any more than a zygote (IMO) is a person. You previously cited the DNA and ancestry of a zygote as support for a zygote being a "human baby". I think the same DNA evidence could support a hair follicle being a human baby, which it clearly is not. You are going to need additional evidence to convince me otherwise.

"If an old person is not considered viable then should they be euthanized?" I don't see how any argument I made can be used to support this claim, and I do not support it. I did not say anything about viability in my argument; you are conflating the words I wrote with what you expected me to write. It would be easier to have a good discussion if you did not do that.

"If a people group is thought of as not human or less than human should it be legal to kill them? What does the golden rule say about that?" Well, your question has in it two conflicting premises. By saying "people group" you are saying that the subjects of your question are people, and by saying "thought of as not human" you are saying that the subjects are not. Now, "thought of" suggests that (within the context of your question) this idea is mistaken. Therefore you appear to be presenting an obfuscated way of saying this: If a group of people is mistakenly thought of as subhuman, should it be legal to kill them? And I would (of course) answer: No, it should not be legal and the golden rule would argue against that. However, if instead we ask this question, then it may be different: If there is a valued nonhuman entity (e.g., potential human or perhaps a thinking non-human), should it be legal to kill them? To this I would answer that it depends on the value and the reason for killing, and I go back to my earlier paragraph starting with "Somewhere on the path".
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Brandon Hills I disagree. A flake of skin or a hair follicle possesses all the same properties you list, and these are not human.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Courtney. Good discussion. My responses to some of your points:

You write, "You can see videos for yourself videos of babies being aborted well before 3rd trimester reacting to the pain of being killed, even trying to scream. But it can't. I know if you saw that and realized that, you would change your stance based on what you've already said." I absolutely would not. All kinds of creatures scream in response to pain; that does not make them human and thus worthy of extraordinary protections.

You write, "I know that probably most who do have an abortion feel shame and guilt for what they do." I firmly disagree, and I would challenge you to find actual evidence for this claim. The women I know who have had abortions feel sad, but not ashamed or guilty, based on what they have told me. Here is a study that concludes, in part, "In the three years after terminating a pregnancy, women tended to cope well emotionally. Women overwhelmingly felt abortion was the right decision in both the short-term and over three years..." (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0128832#sec017)

I think that your media sources are biasing your views, when you report "video evidence of women who say they've had many abortions and would do it again so they could just freely have sex." Perhaps they found one or two people who feel that way...out of how many? Millions?

Also when you report things like "how debased our society has been becoming," I'm very skeptical, because I do not see that at all. Maybe some data can shed light on this? Hmm...you seem to view sexual activity as a things that represents debasement. Here is a CDC study that shows declining rates of teen sexual activity: https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/data/yrbs/pdf/trendsreport.pdf. Here is a CDC result that shows fewer people living a (you might call it) promiscuous lifestyle (more than 5 partners in the previous year) over the 2002 - 2015 period: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statistics/n.htm#number12months. Here is a similar result from a third party that analyzed CDC data, showing that the fraction of HS students who have ever had sex is at an all-time low (in 2017):https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/462-423.png. Here is a chart from an HHS study showing that teen pregnancy is at an all-time low: https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/sites/default/files/teen-birth-rates.png. So, tell me again how you know that our society is becoming more debased? Perhaps because your media tells you so?

Perhaps the debasement you perceive is just that people are outspoken about what you call their "sinful" desires, and will not be shamed by those who want them to feel bad about a natural part of the human condition? I am not ashamed that I, like you, and pretty much every other human, am a sexual being. I don't believe in sin; I believe in the Golden Rule, and not hurting others. I believe that people should be free to live as they wish so long as their choices don't harm others. I believe that people should have as much sex as they and their partner(s) are happy with, and that's a good thing for the world.
Dave Hirsch replied to LoLo Lizarraga's comment.
Out of ALL my Sisters-In-Law!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Courtney, I'm glad to see that my views are more complex than what you ascribe to me. I would say that there is a continuum between a zygote and a newborn infant. I would say the the first is not a human, but instead is a potential human. I would say the second is a human.

Somewhere on the path from zygote to newborn, the creature should begin to have rights (meaning there is a responsibility for society to care for it). Somewhere after that, the creature should have rights that may outweigh the wishes of the mother (meaning that she should not be allowed to terminate it without a good reason). I'm willing to entertain the idea that somewhere after that, it may have rights that allow it to harm its mother (meaning that its life should be saved even if that causes harm to the mother). Nowhere along that continuum should the rights of the creature allow it to kill another human (meaning that there is no time where its life should be saved even if that would kill its mother).

I would place those landmarks fairly late along the path. I think in particular that third-trimester abortions should not be undertaken without a good reason.

So, no, I do not think it's okay to destroy human life, innocent or not, and I believe you are mis-characterizing the pro-choice side of the argument. I think that the vast majority believe as I do that abortion is a tragic choice, outweighed only by worse alternatives. I know women who have had abortions, and none of them did it blithely. Rather, all did it knowing that without the abortion, the consequences would have been dire, not only for them, but for their potential child as well.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Getting through the day is better than the alternative! ❤️
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
Mostly disagree, Courtney.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Whitney Klein
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
I agree: that is the issue. However, I actually hope that the Democrats give him a wall, or at least something he will consider a wall, and that they get real, substantive legislative benefits in exchange. That's what legislating should be about. If he wants a dumb, expensive thing that he can crow about, and he wants it really bad, that should be an opportunity to take him to the cleaners on issues that really matter. And once he is out of office, we can stop spending money on building / maintaining the dumb thing.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Not actually Dan Rather's quote, as it turns out. It's from a commenter on Rather's News And Guts site.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Wait: *Now* you’re all about evidence?! Interesting...

Okay, with that out of the way, I basically agree with you, assuming that these videos and the data in this piece is accurate. It does appear that they kids were not there to antagonize anyone, and that this whole thing was basically due to a mid-communication or misunderstanding: the kids didn’t know there was a Native American rally, and the Native Americans didn’t know that the kids weren’t there to bother them. Perhaps some communication could have avoided this unfortunate interaction.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
Bummer for Europe; lucky for Bellingham!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Probably not from Dan Rather, as it turns out. But posted on his News And Guts page. Here's an updated graphic:
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Thanks, Hannah!
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
Even having to cut it short, you and Dexter will have created amazing memories, which will last a lifetime. Looking forward to seeing you guys once you’re home!
Dave Hirsch replied to Cambria Denison Reinsborough's comment.
Cambria It’s on my shelf too.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
You're doing great, Mom! Stay strong!
Dave Hirsch replied to Courtney L Smith's comment.
Group: Buy Nothing (archive) Bellingham (South), WA
If nobody else wants this, I would love it! I used a lot of closet hangers last time.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Yikes! That sucks, man. Glad you are recovering.
Dave Hirsch replied to Destiny Wormlight's comment.
Group: Buy Nothing (archive) Bellingham (South), WA
It's yours if you want it. PM me to arrange pickup! :)
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeremy Hirsch I see it in the comment here
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Can you see the picture under Jeremy's words "This always makes me smile"? I can't. He can.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
It took me a minute to figure out why you would smile at the "Attachment Unavailable" message. I think it's kind of dry and boring.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Glad you’re taking care of yourself, Mom.
Dave Hirsch commented on Tim McClure's post.
Or just a big neon "FALSE" that will light up when he is lying.
Dave Hirsch commented on Tim McClure's post.
They should have his speech in a 1/4 window, and the rest being a live-fact-checking news panel.
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
There's some research, Mick. What were you saying, again?
Dave Hirsch commented on Jasmine Good's post.
Hope there's not a fire
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
4007
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Olsen
Thank you very much for supplying some kind of evidence in support of your claim. I appreciate when someone from the other side of an argument wants to actually debate using normal ways of trying to convince the other side.

Here's my response:

The bill you refer to (Secure Fence Act of 2006) does not call for a Gulf-to-Pacific fence or wall. It calls for the following (from the official summary of the bill):

"at least two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors extending: (1) from ten miles west of the Tecate, California, port of entry to ten miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; (2) from ten miles west of the Calexico, California, port of entry to five miles east of the Douglas, Arizona, port of entry...; (3) from five miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to ten miles east of El Paso, Texas; (4) from five miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas, port of entry to five miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas, port of entry; and (5) 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry..." (https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/house-bill/6061)

By my calculations, that adds up to 20 + 385 + 95 + 65 + 240 = 805 miles or so, with substantial gaps along the way (total border length is 1933 miles). Meaning that the places where a fence (not wall) would go are those where it makes sense, and not where it doesn't. So, maybe if the proposal were designed to be smarter and cheaper, the Democrats would again support it. And it's wrong to call what this bill proposed a "wall"; it's a "fence".

Let's also note that lots of the border is already fenced: https://www.usatoday.com/border-wall/us-mexico-interactive-border-map/
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger you are making claims about reality: the views held and stated by other humans in the world. Your opinion about that is irrelevant. Imagine if I argued that way about issues you care about: “It’s my opinion that Russ Granger believes we should have totally open borders in this country”. I think you would want evidence for that claim.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
It is simplistic to say "One day Dems are for walls, next they aren't". The Dems were willing to accept the wall as part of a larger deal, not that they supported the wall. Here is the key quote in this story from March 2018: "Democrats were only willing to entertain the massive wall funding figure in exchange for helping the same number of immigrants that Trump embraced in a proposal earlier this year." (https://www.politico.com/story/2018/03/19/border-wall-democrats-respond-470687)

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it, otherwise your claims "blow away like a fart in the wind", Russ.
Dave Hirsch commented on Donna Marie's post.
Umm...How? The issue isn't that they decided to shut down the government; the issue is that they can't agree on a budget. What should we as a country do, when we don't have a budget? When we don't have authorization to allocate the money to pay for things like Park Rangers?
Dave Hirsch commented on Wendy Sullivan's post.
I have and it was great! We loved it!
Dave Hirsch commented on Gary Bittner's post.
I have a box of fancy Maldon that I only use for salted caramels: nothing else matches the big flat crystals of Maldon, AFAIK. Looks cool and has great crunch.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch they were on a different chair. Had a great time!
Dave Hirsch commented on The Babylon Bee's post.
Ha. Comedy.
Dave Hirsch commented on Cliff Sullivan's post.
This is false. Copying and pasting will not affect your feed. This is a chain letter so the original authors can laugh at gullible users.
Dave Hirsch commented on Ailette LLanio Bright's post.
Sorry, no: I don’t do chain letters.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton My understanding is that immigrants, including "illegals" (as you call them), commit crimes at a lower rate than average Americans. So, perhaps, if you want to have fewer murders, we should have more immigrants?
I don't think that a single example (or even a handful) should drive policy: we should look at data and draw conclusions on that basis. Do you have evidence to show that immigrants, or even illegal immigrants, are more dangerous than other people?

I will add that if your values include preventing murders of Americans, and that you believe that should drive policy above other considerations, perhaps you would support a Constitutional Amendment to allow limiting gun ownership? That would certainly reduce murders, in a way that reducing illegal immigration would not, based on current data.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Is this a challenge?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
I decry this violence, just like I decry all violence. And I am not "pro-illegals", but I do think that the measures we currently take to address the problem of illegal entry into our country and undocumented citizens are misguided & out of proportion to the scale of the problem.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Funny! I seriously wrote it in about 4 hours back in 2015, and basically haven't touched it since.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
This didn’t post until I got back to the car, but it was a great day skiing with the kids.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
You're awesome, Mom!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Some cat from the internet
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Thanks, Jeremy! So cute!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
You can do it, Mom! ♥
Dave Hirsch replied to Steve Shimek's comment.
Russ Granger, Paul Mohme Want to revisit this topic today? What does Trump's CAGR look like now?
Dave Hirsch commented on Donna Marie's post.
Um...Top Republicans get paid, too. Why only mention Democrats, unless you're trying to mislead people (not you Donna, but Fox).
Dave Hirsch replied to Jackie Caplan-Auerbach's comment.
I think where we are heading (but will take a long time to get there) is to have a high-T competition and a low-T competition, perhaps with special dispensation for people who may have high-T but do not respond to it (androgen insensitivity). This is the direction that the IAAF moved earlier this year, and it seems reasonable to me. What do you think?
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
I'm actually wanting to know what kind of crazy truck is under there!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's photo.
James P. Sullivan!?
Dave Hirsch replied to Seamus O'Carey's comment.
Joel O'Connor That's what I thought! :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Elizabeth Page's post.
I came within about 2 feet of hitting a deer with my car on the dark top part of Yew St. Road yesterday night! Yikes!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Agreed Jeff. We Democrats need to be better than this. Gerrymandering is wrong no matter which party does it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Tovah Karl's post.
Best time to have The Chat is 24 months, and 3 years, and 4 years, and 5 years, etc. Having ongoing age-appropriate conversations about sex and relationships is the best way. My kids knew the mechanics and the basic biology when they were 2 or 3, IIRC.
Dave Hirsch commented on Anastasia Kreager's post.
House of Leaves is a total freakshow, and you may not be able to sleep.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch Some truck. Happened during the day yesterday - Laurel found it when she got home from school.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Call Comcast - they are there today, in fact. I might be back up and running after work. Depends on if they can get a cherry-picker on site.
And then try to replace the flashing.
Dave Hirsch replied to Shad Malone's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Damn, we're old!
Dave Hirsch commented on Samantha Garagliano's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Scott's post.
Wait a second...it seems like your point is that things are bad with the economy, based on this statistic. However, if the Dow cross 25,000 nine times going down, then the Dow must have crossed 25,000 eight or nine times going up, which appears to reduce the strength of the point you're making (unless your point is about volatility, but that seems less likely).
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
I will be thinking about you today Mom! We all are hoping for an easy treatment for you! ❤️
Dave Hirsch commented on Colleen Diessner's post.
Group: March for Science - Seattle
Oh, puh-leeze. Get over it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Congratulations, you two!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's photo.
Cool, Jeremy! Congrats!
Dave Hirsch commented on Kristin Fortlage Berry's post.
Happy birthday Ryan!
Dave Hirsch commented on Diane Marzonie's photo.
Oh yeah? Talk to me in August. :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Tim McClure's post.
I did research there once! It's lovely.
Dave Hirsch replied to Edmund Purcell's comment.
Yes...or just don't be evil and discriminatory.
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Scott's photo.
God, but I loved that movie!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch it will be fine.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch I’ve got 5 days!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
How did you guess? ;)
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Tom Weinstein Sure, but it complicates this particular question, unless we focus on the revocation of the liberty he already had, and not his "rights" as a member of "The Press".
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Tom Weinstein The tricky bit with these kinds of arguments (rather than those that focus on deprivation of something he had) is that today, what qualifies a person as a member of The Press is very much up for debate. Does anyone who reports news at all, count as a journalist? If so, then there are an awful lot of them. That seems like a problem to me.
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Gerry Coleman Driving was your example, but it would seem that if revoking a driver's license required due process (which seems correct to me), then something that is a bigger deal, Constitutionally, would also require it.
But how far does that go? Can they deny a press pass in the first place to somebody who wants one? I would hope so. Is the key thing the fact that Acosta had one, and then it was taken away?
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Gerry Coleman so, is the fact of a press pass a kind of liberty along the lines of a driver’s license? Liberty to go to press conferences?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Russ Granger 😆. Saw some guys from this today. And there were folks on my flight going to it as well.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Kyle Davis here for a vendor security conference. We’re evaluating the product (Qualys).
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a conference.
Dave Hirsch replied to Bob Gaines's comment.
Pretty good; highlights were costumes, cinematography and effects.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
"The elections office is required to maintain the ballots in federal elections for 22 months, while Snipes destroyed the ballots after 12 months, which is the retention period for state elections"
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger destroying old ballots after keeping them for a year and after they’ve been scanned? Not nearly the same level in my view.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger that article isn’t alleging anything nearly as bad as filling out ballots.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
I will emphasize that election integrity and counting every valid vote is an area where liberals and conservatives should be able to find common ground.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
If true, this is unconscionable. The integrity of our elections is of great importance to our democracy.

But let’s not confuse this with voter fraud (by which I mean in-person fraud perpetrated by individual voters), which basically never happens, and is the pretext for rampant voter suppression in certain parts of the country.

We need to ensure that all elections have paper trails to be able to catch any activities of this kind, even when there isn't a public report.

However, the "If true" part matters. Gateway Pundit isn't exactly known for reliable reporting that values truth over partisan advantage.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
I agree that the primary problem is Whitaker’s removing Rosenstein from the chain of supervision. Plus illegality of an action shouldn’t be the hurdle for whether a protest is legitimate or wise.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
(Poop emoji background because this is a shitshow)
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Sessions is being replaced with Whitaker, a partisan hack who will get rid of Rosenstein. Rosenstein is Mueller's boss, and has been protecting Mueller, so this enables Trump to kill the investigation.

Don't let him! We must protest! Take to the streets!

https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/415591-acting-ag-to-take-over-oversight-of-russia-probe
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Crazy, right?!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
You didn’t actually answer my question.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Date on this is April 2016, Russ. Do you know if this is still going on? Seems like the kind of thing Trump’s IRS might curtail.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I even have the pull-up bar just like he's using!
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
Sean Bruna agreed. Don’t want you to think I’m onboard with Mick’s language here, just trying to focus on the illogic of his position(s).
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
Michael D. Corcoran how are they illegal if they aren’t subject to our jurisdiction?
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
I honestly don't understand how folks like Mick can, at the same time, believe:
(a) "Subject to the jurisdiction" clause in the 14 Amendment means that undocumented immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and therefore should not have birthright citizenship, and:
(b) We need to have more Border Patrol officers, who will arrest undocumented immigrants. The only legal justification for their doing so is that the immigrants are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States.

Bonus craziness: Mick often calls these people "illegals". How can they be illegal, unless they have broken a US law, and how can they break a US law unless they are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the US?
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
You call these people "illegals". What crime have they broken? What crime have they even announced that they intend to break? Please provide evidence in your reply.

You call these people "potential terrorists". Is there any human to which this label does not apply? Is there any reason to think that it applies more to these people than any other, you or me for example? Again, please provide evidence in your reply.
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
Michael D. Corcoran Agreed that he isn't, but you haven't provided any sources for your claim that the majority of the refugees are young males. Why would anyone believe a claim you make, if your only support for the truth of what you say is that they should "look it up"?
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
I thought that was me at first!
Dave Hirsch commented on Morgan Rumpf's post.
It was a great day! Congratulations, you two. Love you both!
Dave Hirsch commented on Kyle Davis's post.
I think this is a calculated distraction. Let's all ignore it until he actually does something, rather than just spewing stream of consciousness stuff.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
I think this is a calculated distraction. Let's all ignore it until he actually does something, rather than just spewing stream of consciousness stuff.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
While the comment is good on its face, the thing that is missing is the context: Tucker Carlson is one of the voices who built (and continues to build) the politics he decries, and he doesn't take any responsibility for his continuing part in it. He just thinks the left should get in line, shut up, and play nice.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jennifer Armstrong Werner's comment.
I did, but still...
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Scott's photo.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
I love mail-in voting!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
No - That's cool!
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
I doubt it. Russ isn't that credulous.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Elizabeth Page Haha! That's a good one. :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
What are you even talking about? Just because you can buy a lotto ticket does not mean you have a photo ID, or can easily obtain one. And just because one can travel and buy lotto tickets is not an argument for obstructing one of our most basic rights. You STILL haven't made an argument for why that barrier to voting is supported by a societal need. Maybe that's because the evidence is against you? There IS no societal harm that is solved by photo ID requirements, and there is a very real harm that is caused by photo ID requirements (disenfranchisement of legal voters, and suppression of legal voters).

All you say over and over is "they should get a photo ID". Why should society make them do that?

I will be happy (happier at least) when the right wing of our country stops trying to win elections by obstructing voters and suppressing the voting of their opponents, and gets back to trying to win on the strength of their policies.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
I didn't mention rides or transportation in that context; I was rebutting your point about transportation implying possession of a photo ID. All those folks with free Uber rides to the polls are exactly the ones who may not be able to vote because they don't have a dang photo ID!

And no, free rides is absolutely not sufficient to safeguard the basic right of voting. Photo ID requirements, and other forms of voter suppression should be eliminated unless there is a proven societal harm they are reducing. You haven't made any attempt to defend the photo ID requirement, I note with interest.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Russ Granger I'm all for that, but we should not be relying on private enterprise to safeguard one of our most fundamental rights.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Russ Granger You are mistaken to equate mobility with having a photo ID. Every week, there is a van full of senior citizens from the assisted living place that comes to the grocery store near me (where they do sell lottery tickets), and lets the seniors shop. Perhaps they even pay with cash!

More importantly however, is that this statement of yours is, to my mind, exactly backwards. You wrote "not having an ID for one of the most influential rights is ridiculous". Because this is the most basic of rights (not a privilege, but a right), we should not put any barrier in place that restricts it, unless that barrier is strongly justified by a societal requirement. To make an analogy: the right to free speech should not be constrained except in the most dire circumstances, and that has been a core tenet of our democracy for centuries. Can you name the harm that justifies putting the photo ID barrier in place? Please cite evidence.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Good points, Mom!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Happy Birthday, E! Hope it's a good one!
Dave Hirsch commented on Shad Malone's post.
I suggest riding bikes and/or walking Venice Beach area, if the weather is good. For $$, a theme park is fun: Harry Potter World at Universal Studios is pretty cool, Disneyland is always classic, and Magic Mountain has the best roller coasters.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
That's a crazy schedule, even for you!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Typical.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Your "doth protest too much" is a deflection.

This thread started because you made a claim: " If you or I claimed to be Native American on a job or college application and were later found to be 1/1024 Native American, our admission would be revoked or we'd be fired." That claim is not about changing ethnicities, but about using an ethnicity that you didn't substanitally have to get a position.

You have provided no evidence for that claim, and I have provided evidence contradicting the claim.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Paul Mohme Now who's deflecting?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Wait, I just realized I made an error earlier: the quote from the Globe article about the student demonstration was at Harvard, not Penn as I implied.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Exactly my point. She checked the box WHILE at Penn. So the previous jobs have no relevance to the discussion.
Now the question is: did she use that ethnicity to get any future positions? The Globe article answers that question with a pretty clear "no".
Do you have evidence otherwise?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Paul Mohme Do you have evidence that she claimed to be Native American when applying for any of those other positions? In fact you are contradicting yourself: You state that she began identifying as Native American while at Penn (after those other jobs), but you direct my attention specifically to those other jobs as well. Make up your mind: was she trying to use her slight Native ancestry to get a job before Penn or not?

And you might well change your stated ethnicity if (as the second paragraph of the Globe article states) in 1993, "students held a silent vigil to demand the law school add more minorities and women to a faculty dominated by white men", and so your insitution was trying to portray itself as less white, and you were doing your part, saying, "My family always said we were a little Native American, so I guess I can help out".
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Raises the question: for characters with an arc, do you get the version from the beginning or end? Would suck to have the corpse of Hamlet as a roommate.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Paul Mohme From that article, in case you don't have time to read it:
"In the most exhaustive review undertaken of Elizabeth Warren’s professional history, the Globe found clear evidence, in documents and interviews, that her claim to Native American ethnicity was never considered by the Harvard Law faculty, which voted resoundingly to hire her, or by those who hired her to four prior positions at other law schools."
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
How is that relevant? She never claimed that she was 1/32 Native American, did she? The results would seem to vindicate her story pretty clearly.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's photo.
Haha. So funny. But I wonder if he will stop with the "Pocohontas" jibe now that he has been shown to be wrong.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Willy Wonka!
Dave Hirsch commented on Ariella Salinas Fiore's post.
Place: The Salt Lick
Place: Iron Works BBQ
Place: Chuy's
Place: Broken Spoke
Iron
Driftwood
I lived there for 8 years. Note that all my knowledge is old though. Last lived there in 2001.

Food:
If you have a car and the time, get out to a good BBQ place. The one I always took visitors to is The Salt Lick (out in Driftwood), but if you can't get there, then the in-town one I liked best was The Iron Works.

Chuy's is a chain now, but it was a single place when I was there, and it's the real Tex-Mex food. The original is on Barton Springs road - go there.

Things to do:
I agree with the music suggestion: this is Austin's claim to fame. I would tend to say that the trip out to Lake Travis is not worth the drive, given a short amount of time.

I had heard that The Broken Spoke was closed but Google says otherwise: it's a semi-authentic Texas dance hall, and can be fun if that's what you're into.

Oh - it's late in the season, but the bats might still be out. There's a huge colony of bats that live under South Congress Bridge and they fly out to eat bugs at dusk. That's a cool thing to see, if they are still there and the weather is decent.

Have fun!
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Scott's photo.
Methodology question: Why October? Why not just take Jan-Jan as the period, or Jan-Dec?
Dave Hirsch commented on Kathie Malakowsky's post.
Group: Chatsworth High School Music Dept
I was in both: Go Chancellors! Go Bruins!
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
I saw a statistic that claimed a man is more likely to be the victim of sexual assault than to be falsely accused.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
LOL
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Lots of webs in the face this morning.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
First run of the day on this trail, it seems.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger Do you really think that what kept her quiet was that some Democrat would keep her story from being exposed? No, Ford stated that she wanted her story kept quiet. ("The letter included my name, but also a request that it be kept confidential")
She wanted a quiet investigation done on the allegations before K was nominated.

I don't see what basis you have for thinking that Ford was unhappy with her treatment by Feinstein, or that this kind of treatment is what kept her quiet about the assault back in 1982. Ford stated, "Feinstein wrote that she would not share the letter without my explicit consent, and I appreciated this commitment."

No, she told us what kept her quiet, and we know from many other victims what kept them quiet for years. It's that people wouldn't believe them because there wasn't evidence for the attack. Just their word against their attacker's.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Olsen Well, speaking from personal experience, I am about her age. I can recall incidents from my teen years, but not the surrounding details. I can remember the time I first kissed my high school girlfriend, but not really where we were or how we got there. So I think her lack of knowledge of the details surrounding the incident make sense, and in fact are exactly what one would expect.
Coupled with that are her openness about what she doesn't recall, her direct and forthright answers to all the questions she was asked, even those from Mitchell which were clearly designed to skewer her, and the surrounding evidence that this kind of thing was part of the atmosphere in that social scene.
Contrast that behavior with K's evasions, lies (e.g., "Devil's Triangle"), and distractions in his answers. Those were the responses of someone who didn't want to answer the questions, which, if he was telling the truth, doesn't make sense to me. Sure he was angry, but he could still have been responsive to the questions.

In addition, there's the issue of who stands to gain? K had a serious incentive to lie, as Russ has admitted. She did not have an incentive to bring this up and get her life destroyed. He was already a public figure, but she was not.

Finally, there's the issue of her previous claims about this to the therapist and others. To believe that she was lying, you would have to imagine a very long-running and broad conspiracy to tar him, just in case he got the nomination some day. Please explain how that works in your model of her lying about this.

We can get way more detailed about this if you want, but I think the weight of these lines of evidence argue in her favor.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Sometimes, but Laurel has no good options.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
And I think the weight of evidence supports the truth of Ford's claim. I'm happy to have a discussion about that if you want. I don't think that is in opposition to my support truth but fully in accord with it.

You say there is no evidence, but I disagree. What kind of thing would constitute evidence for you?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I believe that anybody who lies under oath to Congress is unfit. Leaving aside anything about Ford's specific claims, he lied over and over, not 30 years ago, but right there in front of everybody. That conclusion is based on a very large amount of evidence, much of it his own words. Again, trying to support truth and oppose falsity.

The question of the reporting delay, and Feinstein, etc. is a separate thing. Happy to have that discussion if you want.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Interesting that you first posted "Move on...out" (which I interpreted as "let's just agree to disagree here") but then changed it to just laughing at my desire to support truth and oppose falsity.

Laughing at the idea we should support truth. Illuminating.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I think that if we all do our little part to support truth and oppose falsity around us, then that will elevate the discourse in general. That is my goal.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
You are asking me to prove a negative, and to prove something I'm not claiming. My claim was not so large as to encompass all the actions of Democrats. My claim was only the falsity of this particular claim you made about this particular video.

It may well be the case that Democrats do this thing, but this video doesn't show that, and therefore what you posted is false.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
You don't get to own only the video part of what you post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I disagree on both points. She is not referring to Democratic tactics, but Republican ones. And you did post this as their tactic, as the caption clearly shows:
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
That seems like a distraction from the point we are discussing here, which is whether what you posted is true or not. You posted something that claims to be Pelosi "explaining how [Democrats] falsely accuse their political opponents".
I called BS on it, providing evidence.
You are now replying that she said something else that you find troubling, without responding to my criticism.

Can I infer that you therefore agree that what you posted was false?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Um....no. This is not her talking about Democratic tractics or strategies. It was purposefully taken out of context. Here's the whole thing: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4754100%2Fwrap-smear-context
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's photo.
Horrifying. Congratulations on the win, Russ.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jennifer Armstrong Werner Oh that sucks! Sorry to hear it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
I like it!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
This is awesome (the balls-grabbing, not the shaming)! Go, Jen!
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Russ Granger I'm not offended. I just don't think that name-calling is conducive to a productive discussion and mutual search for the truth that we are having via vigorous debate here.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Russ Granger Is name calling really necessary?
Dave Hirsch replied to Shelley Custer's comment.
That is *your* idea - that the greatest fear is for your life. I happen to agree with you, but I'm not sure everyone else would.
Dave Hirsch replied to Shelley Custer's comment.
Domino Finn I agree as far as it goes. However, I would personally think the fear of being beaten up is pretty different from the fear of being raped. If I thought that my being forcibly sodomized was a possibility, that would color my actions and my stress levels differently from if I thought I might be beaten up.

Plus, I've never been beaten up, and nobody in my family or close friends ever has, to my knowledge. But I know plenty of victims of sexual assault. So my fear of being beaten up is more academic, but their fear of assault is very realistic. So, I think there is merit in the comparison / contrast, even though I have definitely held my keys as a potential weapon, and done some of the other things on the list at times.
Dave Hirsch replied to Shelley Custer's comment.
Craig Zerf I somewhat agree but the point is that while you and I in our daily lives may do some of these things to avoid assault, we don’t think about *sexual* assault, and many of these things in the list aren’t on our minds (e.g., don’t let your drink out of your sight).
Dave Hirsch replied to Shelley Custer's comment.
The original post from which the list was borrowed actually DOES specifically say sexual assault.
Dave Hirsch replied to Andi Zamora's comment.
You’re right, Andi!
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
Patrick Madalo I’m not sure what this comment is referring to.
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
David Nicholson So, are you angry that "everyone cheats" as you said in your comment above, or that the "leftists" don't show their cheating right out in the open, as the Republicans did with Merrick Garland?
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
Got it; thanks. So, are you actually alleging that Democrats held up a nomination? And held a seat open? In 2016?
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
David Nicholson I don't understand what you're talking about, or what comment of mine you are referring to. When are you claiming that somebody held open a spot until Hillary was elected? Who held it open? You are confusing me, but that's probably because I'm not smart.
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
Patrick Madalo I will add that you are mistaken about Anita Hill. After the background checks were completed, the allegations came out, and Bush specifically directed the FBI to investigate (on 9/23/1991). Here is a timeline: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/19/politics/anita-hill-clarence-thomas-allegations-timeline/index.html
Dave Hirsch replied to Patrick Madalo's comment.
Patrick Madalo No it doesn't. The constitutional rights to Due Process only apply when the government is trying to harm you in some way. Do you need due process to be allowed to cross the street? To get a bank account? To file a police report? No. Just because it seems you didn't trouble to look it up, here is the 5th Amendment which is the one that includes the right to due process:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Tell me how this applies to giving somebody a government job. Is he being deprived of "Life, liberty, or property" in this Senate proceeding? No.

Now if the Maryland DA decides to bring charges against him, then he would be in danger of being deprived of "life, liberty, or property" *in that proceeding*, and would need to have due process. This thing happening in the Senate is not that.
Dave Hirsch replied to Patrick Madalo's comment.
There's a difference between a criminal *proceeding* where he would have due process and probable cause rights and such, and this proceeding here, which is not. Sure, what is being alleged is a crime, but this is not a criminal proceeding, so those issues of due process do not apply. Nobody is threatening to take away his life, liberty, or property, just to potentially deny his a promotion.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
So, good to know that you don't support his lying under oath. And yes, directness and clarity are always a bonus in fraught discussions like these. So, thanks!
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
And let's go back Russ, and realize that when I said that his motivation [for lying] is to get the top job, you said "Sure he would. Who wouldn't"

Did you mean that?

Because if so, you are agreeing that it's okay for our top legal arbiters to commit perjury and to lie to the American people. I'd expect more respect for the law from a Supreme Court Justice.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Who won't hand over what documents to whom?
Dave Hirsch replied to Patrick Madalo's comment.
Explain how any of this is a violation of Kavanaugh's rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Please be specific as to what right is being violated and how.
Dave Hirsch replied to Patrick Madalo's comment.
Patrick Madalo Those ideas of "Probable Cause" and "Due Process" only apply to prosecutions. This is not a prosecution. Look it up.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Russ Granger So are you saying that she has been planning this since at least 2012, just in case Kavanaugh got to this point?
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
I agree that it is possible. But I think the weight of the (admittedly circumstantial) evidence is on her side. And I did not say there is no motivation, I asked you to say what you think her motivation is. To be fair, I will tell you what I think Kavanaugh's motivation is: he wants the top job in his field. Your turn.
Dave Hirsch replied to Patrick Madalo's comment.
I think Timmy's house, July 1, 1982 is a good place to start.
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
Patrick Madalo That is irrelevant to my point about how long the investigation will likely take.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Plus in the Duke case, the accuser was going to sue and get some payout. Here, there is nothing in it for Ford but pain. What is her motivation for lying?
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
I ignored Duke, because you are cherry-picking the one notable case in recent years of a false allegation. If instead of relying on an anecdote, you look at studies and statistics, you will find that the vast majority of allegations are not found to be false.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger Yes, Russ, but that is not the same as having an investigator follow up on things you said, and look you in the eye. Plus they can always say that their lawyer made a mistake if they didn't sign the statement, I think.
Dave Hirsch replied to David Nicholson's comment.
That's the wrong standard. This is not about a crime, it's about fitness for the job. The standards are totally different, and you can't fix that after the fact.

And while I don't speak for all Democrats, I do not expect that a reasonable delay (about a week! Anita Hill's claims were investigated in I think 4 days!) will possibly cause there to be a delay through to the end of the term, so I don't expect a delay to lead to a change in the Senate before confirmation. Even if Kavanaugh gets pulled, there's still time to confirm somebody else before the end of the term.

And I don't recall you being on the side of the angels and against a raw power grab when Garland was held up for a year. Maybe you were calling for a vote at that time? Maybe you can point me to your previous posts, David?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton You wrote "The four people she named as witnesses ALL swore under penalty of perjury it didn't happen" That is false. They swore in letters that (AFAIK) signed by their lawyers that they couldn't remember it happening, which is not the same thing.
Sure he was investigated six times, but apparently not very well because they didn't get at any of this stuff that's coming out about his behavior in his youth. And they could certainly get more than a handful of sentences out of Mark Judge.
And I do not expect that a reasonable delay (about a week! Anita Hill's claims were investigated in I think 4 days!) will possibly cause there to be a delay through to the end of the term, so no I don't expect a delay to lead to a change in the Senate before confirmation.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Okay, I get your point now. You may be right about that. I still think that Feinstein made a promise to keep her name secret, and trusting Senators and staffers and FBI staff to do that may have been something Ford and/or Feinstein wasn't prepared to do. You seem to be both awfully confident in the integrity of (I'd guess) about 100 people to keep her name secret, as well as confident that about 3 people were not able to do so. That seems contradictory.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger You are evading my point by pointing out supposed harm caused by Democrats to Ford, so I'll ask again: do you want these claims fully investigated or not? I get that you think Democrats are gaming the system by waiting and engineering this timeline. But that's kind of beside the point I'm making: should the claims be fully investigated or not? For a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, I think the timing should be secondary to a full investigation. But I guess you are saying that because one side played games with the timing, we should just agree that it's not important to know the truth in this case?

You say you're not going to provide evidence. Okay, but I'm sad to see that you continue to refuse to have a reasonable discussion where there's citation of facts to support your claims. I have supported all my claims, I think. Seems unfair that you should use some third party as justification for not having an actual good discussion here. It makes me think that you don't actually have evidence in this case, because at other times in the past you have used evidence to support your claims.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
So, you are saying that had Feinstein released the letter (against the express wishes of the alleged victim), that would have caused an FBI investigation to happen? That is just false.

It requires Trump to ask for an FBI investigation. They don't do what the Senate says.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Okay, good! We've both made predictions. I see that our two predictions are not opposites, so it could be that we are both right, or both wrong. Let's try to come back to this point and see how it turns out after the midterms.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Glad to see you aren't disputing that this is a rush, nor my second point about the supposed denials of those who Ford claims were there.

As to the pawn thing, you haven't provided evidence about that, you are just asking me to provide evidence about something else. Let's be clear that you have no evidence for her being a pawn.

Evidence for Ford's story: Admittedly none of it is conclusive, but then there's no conclusive evidence on his side either. The calendar is not conclusive in the way he claims. However I think there is a weight of circumstantial evidence, including his yearbook, the Judge character Bart O'Kavanaugh, the many reports of hard-drinking and boundary-pushing atmosphere in the circles he was in at the time, Ford's claims to her therapist well before Kavanaugh was in line for this job. There's probably more, but that's some for you. I get that these pieces of evidence might not sway you, so here's one more: he has a big incentive to lie and she doesn't. She gets nothing but pain out of bringing this forward, and he gets arguably the most powerful job in the world if he can get through this process.

As for the Democrats declining the investigation, I think you're mistaken. The Democrats declined to participate in a conference call to ask questions to certain relevant individuals, but that's not declining to have the FBI investigate these claims. Or perhaps you are saying that by Feinstein waiting until Ford agreed to allow her letter to go public, that constitutes declining an FBI investigation?

So here's my question about your last claim: you seem very insistent that the Democrats should have investigated (no matter the harm that might have caused Dr. Ford). Why? To get to the bottom of this issue? Or for some other reason? If you think there should have been a better investigation, why not advocate for such an investigation now?
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
I don't think the calendar is as exculpatory as he claims. He said there was never a time where the "party" (really a small get-together) could have happened. Many people are pointing to July 1, 1982. He claimed without reason or support, that he couldn't have had a party on a summer weeknight, but July 1 in the calendar had exactly such a party. It's unfortunate that the Democrats didn't press him harder on that point.

And you are ignoring the point Adam is making, Russ. How does a problem with the process make it right to vote to confirm the guy right away? Does he have some inalienable right to have the process last no longer than a certain number of days? You haven't made a connection there.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
They were asking for a *non-partisan* investigation, by a group of professionals trained in such things. This was done for the Anita Hill claims. You are referring to a staff investigation by Senate staffers, I believe. That is a different animal entirely.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
We'll see. I think you are mistaken, and I think that you'll see that the Republicans will lose a substantial (at least 10%) fraction of the women's vote in November compared to the last midterm elections, or even the last midterm elections following a first-term Republican president.. Want to make a specific prediction about how this will hurt the Democrats? Predictions force us to put our money (figuratively) where our mouth is.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
First, there is clearly a rush. How else do you explain them not wanting to call witnesses and otherwise gain a fuller knowledge of these claims before voting? You say "there's a process" but as we saw in Garland's case, the process is whatever the Republicans want it to be. They are running the show and can slow it down if they wish. They clearly are trying to get this done as fast as possible. And I don't recall you caring very much about the normal pace of voting on nominees in the Garland case. Perhaps I'm wrong about that though and you'd like to cite your outcry about "The Process" in that case?

Second, you are mistaken when you say that "those named...denied ever being there." They denied remembering that specific get-together, which is a different thing. We can discuss the likelihood of folks remembering some random small get-together from 35 years ago where they were drunk and not sexually assaulted if you want.

Third, you say she is a pawn for political gain. Do you have evidence for this? Was she a pawn in 2012 when she told her counselor about the attack?

Fourth you say that the Democrats declined an FBI investigation. This is news to me; can you provide more evidence for this?

I don't really understand your final paragraph. Yes, it's hard to prove your innocence against an allegation of this kind. And certainly if this were a criminal case the lack of evidence would perhaps prevent it from moving forward. However, this is not a criminal trial, and he doesn't *have* to prove his innocence. He can just choose to stay in his current job as one of the most powerful judges in the nation. Poor guy.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Oh, I agree fully. But it points out how his previous facade of impartiality and apoliticality was a sham.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
NPR commentators pointed out that for a guy who just recently couldn't agree that the sun rose in the East because it might be a political issue, he just painted the whole Democratic Party and the Left as completely craven and out to get him. Interesting that such principles get left by the side of the road when it suits him.

Can he possibly be impartial should be be seated?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
So, because the process didn't go the way they wanted, we should all ignore her testimony and just vote this guy into office FOR LIFE? What's the rush? They waited on Garland for about a year. The rush is all political, none of it in favor of achieving justice or getting to the truth.

And it's only "character assassination" if she's lying. Otherwise it's bringing forward important information relevant to the public good.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
Over and fucking over
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
Over and fucking over
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
Like I said elsewhere. Process arguments don't tend to work very well. *cough* Merrick Garland *cough*
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
I think a lot of his evasions were about running out the clock so the Dems couldn't ask as many questions.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
I think a lot of his evasions are about running out the clock so the Dems couldn't ask as many questions.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
That's for sure. He doesn't seem stable.
Dave Hirsch replied to Diane Marzonie's comment.
No, she didn't. She was shaky though, in her manner and voice.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Indeed!
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
Good point - I understand there's no statute of limitations on the crime, and furthermore there's perjury to consider.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
Oh, I think you may be mistaken. I think the four holdouts are going to balk and Trump will pull this guy. We'll see what happens after he testifies. But I'm an optimist...
Dave Hirsch replied to Elizabeth Page's comment.
I missed it too.
Dave Hirsch replied to Elizabeth Page's comment.
On break now. I don't think there is that much time left, but I'm not sure. There are about 30 (?) senators, 5 minutes each = 150 minutes. There must have been about 2 hours of testimony so far. Let's hope she stays on top of things.
Dave Hirsch replied to Elizabeth Page's comment.
I don't think it's getting them anywhere though. Ford is being so honest about what she knows, what she doesn't, and her degree of confidence in everything, that I don't think the Republicans are getting anything out of that line of questioning at all.

They are just making themselves look bad. Especially with irrelevant stuff like "How scared of flying are you, really. Dr. Ford? Isn't it true that you took...VACATIONS?!?"
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I love when she brings out the science stick in a room full of lawyers!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
And Dr. Ford doesn't seem particularly shaky or emotional in answering the lawyer's questions, the way she was in her initial statement. I'm not referring to the content (which I agree is certainly intended to poke holes in the story) but to the tone when I say "not too bad".
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I agree, but at least her tone isn't as aggressive and confrontational as she might be.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
It's not so bad now that the initial statement is over. Still bad in places, but the Republican lawyer/questioner isn't too bad.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Not surprised either. Lots of schadenfreude over the entitled rich football kid finally getting some small degree of comeuppance for the asshole he apparently was in his youth.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
I recall doing my own patches...when I was about 15. 😄
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
I have a camera backpack I got from Amazon.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
No, Mom’s old 40D
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Julie Tamayo's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
All of them!
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
Oh, yeah. This is very good.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
It is good!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
He was into it. We’ll see about officially joining.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Thanks! We’re still here and he’s off hanging with some of the other boys. I’ll let you know later. Thanks for the offer!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Dave Hirsch commented on Yes to Affordable Groceries's post.
This is a bogus AstroTurf campaign by the soda companies. Nobody is taxing groceries. Vote No on 1634.
Dave Hirsch commented on Garrett M. Eckerling's live video.
Cool! Have fun! Gotta go. 🙂
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Cool!
Dave Hirsch replied to Elizabeth Page's comment.
Flowers?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeremy Hirsch That's an interesting perspective. You may well be right. I wonder if we'll ever know.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
The first time I read this, I thought you had "grabbed the razor instead of the toothbrush" and I read the next words with growing horror: "and then left the bathroom with a mouthful of ..." (BLOOD!!!) 🤢💀🚑
Dave Hirsch commented on Heidi Marcus McDermott's post.
I took my 7th grade daughter to see it, too. It was awkward in places to sit together, but it was also good to be able to laugh together in other places. Definitely recommend!
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
I love that trick! Go Malachi!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
The thing I don't understand is why this writer would choose to write the piece. If they really are trying to save the country by thwarting Trump from inside the White House, how does publicizing that fact further the goal?
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
My view is that people should respect the wishes of a person, or their close surviving relatives, about how to treat their image in the public sphere.

My view is also that I can find whatever I please to be interesting, and your denial ("it's not interesting at all") doesn't change that.

I will also add that many on the right, including your comment above, do not seem to grasp the idea of institutional racism, or how it differs from individual racism. I do not believe that saying "the country oppresses black people" means that the speaker thinks all Americans or even most or even a substantial minority harbor racism in their hearts. I believe that it refers to the institutions of this country, and how they act, individually and in combination, to oppress people of color. I don't believe that the statement is accusing you of being a racist in your heart.

I have publicly written (I think in a conversation you were part of) that the players have a right to protest, and the team owner has a right to fire them for that protest. I think that protesting peacefully is the best part of what makes America great, and the fact that our country can accommodate protests without falling apart has made us through our history a shining example to the world. So I support their protest in this very peaceful and, to my mind, respectful way. However, if their team does fire them, then I won't lose any sleep over that either. They should recognize that as a risk.

Finally, I get that it's a meme. But you chose to repost that meme, so I think it's fair to criticize you for the use of Tillman's image against his widow's wishes.
Dave Hirsch commented on The Oatmeal's post.
♥ "rejuvEnation" ♥
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
It's interesting that you draw that analogy. That you feel Tillman's widow's desires around her husband's likeness are analogous to your desires about the flag. That you should have the same control over other people's use of the flag that she should have over other people's use of her husband.
Dave Hirsch commented on Michael Andrade's post.
Sadly, it's in Atlanta. :(
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
Looks great!!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
I was under the house pushing dirt to the hole. They were pulling the dirt out the hole from outside.
Dave Hirsch commented on Todd Koetje's post.
Well, that's not nearly as exciting as I'd hoped.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Paul Baker While I don't appreciate name-calling, I'll respond. If we didn't have insurance, we'd have to invent it. It's filling a valid societal need. I've made a number of claims over the past 30-ish years, from a number of companies, and I've been generally very pleased with the service and payouts. I understand that you may have had different experiences.
It may well be true that they are charging too much and paying too little. They are for-profit companies that are trying to make money, not do good for society. However, most (all?) states have insurance commissioners to regulate the state insurance market, and that take complaints from the public. Also, one can take the insurance company to court if one feels they are violating the contract.
You say that my points about flood and fire zones are BS. So, what I hear you saying Paul is that insurance companies should be forced to insure you, for rates that you deem reasonable, no matter where you choose to build? That seems wrong-headed to me. If you were running an insurance company, would you insure houses that you reasonably expected to flood or burn in a few years? I wouldn't. That kind of strategy would quickly bankrupt the company.
You've told me I'm a dim bulb and that my points are BS. Please describe what you think insurance companies should do in this kind of situation.
Dave Hirsch commented on Move To Amend's post.
Totally disagree. Insurance companies are the only way we can be stopped from (re)building in places that are stupid to build in, like flood zones, or fire-prone areas. The companies aren't refusing to pay out for fire damage, they are just refusing to insure people who have made the choice to live in very risky locations. That seems like a reasonable decision to me.
Dave Hirsch commented on Mathew Satuloff's post.
Totally agree that a boycott has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech of In-N-Out. Furthermore, the idea of corporate personhood is the most pernicious in modern society. Support an amendment to kill it: https://movetoamend.org/
Dave Hirsch commented on Julie Tamayo's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Rubio's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
So, you should switch to Google Pay, with good authentication for the account. I can help you with this next month when we get together.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Matt Smiley's post.
Looks like somebody left his phone unlocked while he left the room.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
See above: owned by Paypal, and just as bad. But notably, none of the available options are very good. I haven't checked out FB Messenger Payments yet though.
Dave Hirsch replied to Steve Shimek's comment.
Matt Oberhardt Doesn't that study include in the numbers you cite illegal aliens locked up just for being illegal aliens? The claim that people make is about crimes such people commit other than being here illegally. Nobody is denying that undocumented folks are all criminals in a sense (although that question is trickier for kids brought by their parents).
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Interesting write-up by Consumer Reports: https://www.consumerreports.org/digital-payments/mobile-p2p-payment-services-review/ They like Apple Pay Cash best.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Square's Cash App is just as bad.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Update: Venmo is just the same (just as bad).
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I'm thinking about Apple Pay Cash.
Dave Hirsch replied to Steve Shimek's comment.
That's fine, Paul, but that's not what Russ was claiming. A reasonable read of his claim would be aggregated gain under each.
Dave Hirsch replied to Steve Shimek's comment.
Paul Mohme I'm just going by the values of the Dow on their respective inauguration days. I can see the rationale in your point, though. Let's go by election days:
DJIA close on 11/4/2008 - 9625
DJIA close on 11/7/2016 - 18332
DJIA open today - 25882

Obama's rise in the Dow - 90%
Trump's rise in the Dow - 41%

My basic point still stands.
Dave Hirsch replied to Steve Shimek's comment.
Russ Granger you wrote that Trump " Helped my investments...more than obama EVER did." Really? Under Obama, the Dow rose 149%. So far under Trump it has risen about 28%. Now it is true that under the equivalent period of Obama's term to date, the Dow only rose 19%, and it may turn out that Trump is better for the economy over his term, but I don't see how you can say that Trump has helped your investments more than "Obama ever did". Can you explain what you mean by that?
Dave Hirsch commented on Donna Marie's photo.
You are in for a long ride!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Michael Davis what would make that a crime? Can you cite a law that the purchase of the Steele dossier would violate?

Because making a campaign expenditure is not itself in violation of the law. If we presume that the purchase of the dossier is a "thing of value given to influence a federal election", then that is not necessarily a violation. I believe it was the DNC who paid for it, and the DNC was allowed to spend $23,821,100 for the presidential campaign (https://www.fec.gov/updates/coordinated-party-expenditure-limits-adjusted-3/).

So, no it's not who it affects or helps that makes it a crime, it's who paid for it.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton Here is a response I wrote to something Russ posted. Not sure if you will see it there. It's not 100% germane to this thread (it refers to a Mark Levin Hannity interview), but many of the points of law are relevant to our discussion:

"just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so" - That is a fair point; just because Cohen pled to this doesn't make it a crime. However, the judge also does have to accept the plea bargain. If he pled to a non-crime, such as buying a loaf of bread at the store, and the prosecutors asked for punishment, the judge would not accept that plea bargain. So at least the judge, the prosecutors, and (probably, but not certainly) Cohen & Davis believe it was a crime. Furthermore, there are clear sections of Federal law that are relevant to this. The plea agreement describes them: "Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October
2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 3011801) 35 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement) So, while Levin's claim about this not having been adjudicated to prove his violation of the relevant law is correct, it's not as if everybody just made up a crime out of thin air.

"A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity" - This is _false_. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a campaign expenditure as "A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or ANYTHING OF VALUE GIVEN TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54. (emphasis added)"

"You can use my corporate funds... That is perfectly legal, too." - This may be true or false, depending on the nature of the corporation. If a true corporation spends its money on a campaign contribution, that is a violation of law (this is what Count Seven of the plea agreement above is about, and the sections of law being violated are cited above.) However, if the "corporation" is actually a single-member LLC, then it can make contributions, and assuming Trump is the only member of the LLC, he would have no contribution limit. However, The Trump Organization is clearly not a single-member LLC (https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=344985), so it would be a partnership LLC, subject to the individual contribution limits (and therefore the size of the expenditure would be illegal), or a corporate LLC, and any expenditure would be illegal.

"Nothing here was spent out of the campaign" - True

"Nothing was done with the campaign" - Totally implausible. It is unreasonable to think that Cohen chose to silence these women totally on his own initiative, without having the campaign (run by his boss) involved.

"Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that." - Only true if Trump is paying for it out of his own personal pocket. Otherwise, see the above section on the corporate funds problems.

"Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees?" - This is a red herring. The problem is not the NDA, the problem is that the NDA is a thing of value to the campaign, and therefore is a campaign expenditure.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
I watched the whole thing, and then read the transcript. Here are my reactions, and I hope you are willing to devote the same amount of time reading them as I spent reading Levin's stuff.

"Nobody cites plea bargains for precedent" - Nobody is claiming anything about precedent, so that part is irrelevant.

"just because a prosecutor says that somebody violated a campaign law doesn’t make it so" - That is a fair point; just because Cohen pled to this doesn't make it a crime. However, the judge also does have to accept the plea bargain. If he pled to a non-crime, such as buying a loaf of bread at the store, and the prosecutors asked for punishment, the judge would not accept that plea bargain. So at least the judge, the prosecutors, and (probably, but not certainly) Cohen & Davis believe it was a crime. Furthermore, there are clear sections of Federal law that are relevant to this. The plea agreement describes them: "Count Seven of the Information charges the defendant with willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution, from at least in or about June 2016, up to and including in or about October
2016, in violation of 52 U.S.C. 3011801) 35 30109(d)(1)(A), and 18 U.S.C." (https://www.lawfareblog.com/document-michael-cohen-plea-agreement) So, while Levin's claim about this not having been adjudicated to prove his violation of the relevant law is correct, it's not as if everybody just made up a crime out of thin air.

"A campaign expenditure under our federal campaign laws is an expenditure solely for campaign activity" - This is _false_. The Code of Federal Regulations defines a campaign expenditure as "A gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or ANYTHING OF VALUE GIVEN TO INFLUENCE A FEDERAL ELECTION; or the payment by any person of compensation for the personal services of another person if those services are rendered without charge to a political committee for any purpose. 11 CFR 100.52(a) and 100.54. (emphasis added)"

He spends a lot of time working & giving examples to get the viewers to believe his false version of what constitutes a campaign expenditure, probably because he can't cite the law, because he is wrong. This means he is either not much of an expert, or lying.

"You can use my corporate funds... That is perfectly legal, too." - This may be true or false, depending on the nature of the corporation. If a true corporation spends its money on a campaign contribution, that is a violation of law (this is what Count Seven of the plea agreement above is about, and the sections of law being violated are cited above.) However, if the "corporation" is actually a single-member LLC, then it can make contributions, and assuming Trump is the only member of the LLC, he would have no contribution limit. However, The Trump Organization is clearly not a single-member LLC (https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=344985), so it would be a partnership LLC, subject to the individual contribution limits (and therefore the size of the expenditure would be illegal), or a corporate LLC, and any expenditure would be illegal.

"Nothing here was spent out of the campaign" - True

"Nothing was done with the campaign" - Totally implausible. It is unreasonable to think that Cohen chose to silence these women totally on his own initiative, without having the campaign (run by his boss) involved.

"Let’s say Donald Trump even directed Michael Cohen to make payments in non-disclosure agreements. So what? He is allowed to do that." - Only true if Trump is paying for it out of his own personal pocket. Otherwise, see the above section on the corporate funds problems.

"Has the Southern District of New York ever paid money in a non-disclosure agreement with any of its employees?" - This is a red herring. The problem is not the NDA, the problem is that the NDA is a thing of value to the campaign, and therefore is a campaign expenditure.

(The rest of the bit is just insults, blather, and bravado.)

So, there is this guy who is clearly wrong on a number of points, and then there are knowledgable other folks involved (Cohen, Davis) who all have a vested interest in having these things actually not be illegal, whose lives would be easier if they were not illegal, and who could fight them in court if they thought they might actually win, but who took a plea instead. I think the weight of evidence suggests that Levin is wrong here, and the judge, Cohen, Davis, and prosecutors are right that these actions are violations of law.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I don't see how your points below relate to your posting this thing about a possibly undocumented immigrant (I understand he disputes this) allegedly murdering this woman. Below you don't seem to be referring to this murder.
Dave Hirsch replied to Lukas Pittman's comment.
AP Miento PM me if you want them.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
You are not Google's customer; you are their product.
Dave Hirsch commented on Morgan Rumpf's post.
Stay safe, Morgan and Richard!!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch Kinda: facts of modern life. She's known the mechanics since she was 2. This was stuff about pressure, and friends, and social media. Go see the movie! :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
It was good, and formed the basis for some good discussions, talks that she hated I made her take part in. 😄
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Well, I disagree with you, and so do the lawyers. I assume that if the case for the legality of the actions were so clear-cut, that Cohen would not have cut a deal. You seem to be an expert on the law, though, so I'm sure you know better than Cohen, an attorney. It's unfortunate that he didn't have you to advise him, and he will be paying for that oversight with (probably) 3-7 years in prison. What a travesty!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton No, of course it isn't illegal, and nobody is claiming that NDA itself is illegal, but the purpose of it (to influence an election and favor one candidate) makes it illegal. An analogy is that driving your car with passengers isn't illegal, but driving it away from a bank with the bank robbers in it makes the driving illegal. It's all about the context and purpose.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
That is a funny article. It's no surprise that it's a pollster who is commenting on election and campaign finance law, and not an attorney, because the arguments are to my mind, laughable. He compares Trump's payment (via Cohen) to silence a potentially damaging story right before the election to a hypothetical where ABC pays to get the story out to damage Trump, ignoring the fact that one of those is from the campaign itself, and the other is not.

He claims that paying for the Steele dossier is the real crime here, without offering much of a rationale for that claim.

Regardless, I don't think we'll need to have pollsters opine on what constitutes criminal violations of law for very much longer, because this will soon be in the courts.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Come visit again!
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Oh, wait - you were joking, weren't you? Duh.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
The picture doesn't do it justice, but normally the light isn't nearly so yellow, and those hazy trees in the middle distance would be clear and sharp, and the vague brown layer of haze in the lower sky wouldn't be present.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger can you do any better than this?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell well you’re kind of right. I am trying to get you or Russ to make a clear policy point here so that we can have an intelligent discussion rather than just meme-posting or vague allegations. Making clear, specific points will help us have a good policy discussion and maybe we’ll both actually learn something instead of just yelling at each other.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell how is that related to this specific incident?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell I don’t see how this arrest shows the way in which walls work, since we don’t have the wall yet. Can you explain the link?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeff Morrell can you be more specific? Right about what exactly?
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Russ, I'm guessing that you are posting this because you are trying to make some larger point, as opposed to just informing us of a single murder charge out of the many that are brought in the US every day. Can you say what your point is?
Dave Hirsch replied to Kay Carkner Hoffman's comment.
It wasn’t actually all smoke; it was more like smog. Smelled bad but didn’t make us cough.
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
We were right there! It was really bad.
Dave Hirsch replied to Rob Knode's comment.
Yup!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Having a blast here!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joanne Salustri Cherep's post.
Thank you for valuing truth, Joanne!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
And the f***ing comma after "mean" - WTH?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Hi Russ - Thanks for repeating it, but I will point out that using the word "displeasure" only shows that the writer knows that the person is displeased, not that he knows what the person is displeased ABOUT. And that is a relevant question, because some on the right (not saying you, but perhaps Nugent) have mis-characterized what the protests are about: Paul Ryan suggested that they are "protesting against the people who have given their life for this country and the ideals that we all strive for to make a more perfect union". That is just wrong. Does Nugent agree with Ryan's mistaken view, or does he know what the protests are about? The fact that his piece is all about wars we fought and soldiers who were injured or who died, suggests to me that he does not in fact know what the protests are about.

And the piece was not about whether it's appropriate for the kneelers to protest while on the job vs. on their own time. It was about whether they should protest under the flag at all. If their employers want to fire them over this protest, then they have the right to do so, I believe, but that question is not part of the original Nugent piece you posted/linked.

And finally, I didn't ask if you would object to a protest in favor of a right-wing, national cause (national concealed carry law), but whether Nugent would. I still doubt that very much.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
And, yes, I do know what they are protesting: police violence, particularly against people of color. And they are kneeling rather than sitting, or turning their backs or the like, as a symbol of respect for the flag and the anthem: https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-how-nate-boyer-got-colin-kaepernick-to-go-from-sitting-to-kneeling/
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger that quote does not demonstrate what they are protesting (what they are displeased about). If they are protesting the lack of a national concealed carry law, would he still object?
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
I suggest a color laser printer. Far more affordable over the long term, better quality, longer-lasting prints, longer lifespan.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Interesting. But I would be more moved by this post if there were any sign that the writer understands what the kneelers are protesting, or why they are kneeling rather than sitting for example.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jason Fiber's post.
All of these are describing the phenomenon of temptation and/or betrayal/love triangle. A simple one would be (from left to right): "Video games"-"Me"-"Homework", suggesting that although I have a duty to do my homework, I'm tempted by video games.
An example that includes the betrayal/love triangle idea would be: "Socialism"-"The Youth"-"Capitalism", where Capitalism is trying to get/keep the loyalty of The Youth, and in which The Youth basically adheres to Capitalism, but is tempted and interested by the ideas of Socialism.
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
Adorable!
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael Toy's comment.
"Nothing is secure" != "Everything is equally insecure"

Also

"Nothing is secure" != "Everything is equally risky"
Dave Hirsch replied to Andi Zamora's comment.
Haha! That's awesome.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
I so agree!!
Dave Hirsch commented on American Scientist's photo.
Relevant data would be absolute numbers, rather than just percentages. Perhaps the decline is not due to declining "interest" but declining availability relative to the numbers of Ph.D.s being produced?
Dave Hirsch commented on Beth Rusk's photo.
Awesome! Miss you guys!
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Allegations of personal malfeasance are not evidence of site bias or unreliability.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Chris Bittner Interesting. I assume that "InfoWars for liberals" means left-slanted and providing false information. What evidence do you have that Snopes has a liberal bias? What evidence do you have that Snopes provides false information?
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Good question. I judge them reliable because: (a) many other reputable sources tend to agree with them; (b) their articles are exhaustive, detailed, well-reasoned, and not generally sensational in tone, with citations to references that support the points made in them; (c) they have been around doing this work for a long time; and (d) the articles that covers topics about which I have firsthand knowledge are accurate.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
I'm not using the personalities behind the sites to judge them, but the content of the sites.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Regardless of the personal dirtiness of the founder, Snopes remains reliable. Your comment about InfoWars is a good example of the difference. InfoWars promulgates mostly false information; Snopes is generally reliable.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
So, nobody who lies in a personal private context should be trusted to debunk stories in the press? That seems like a high bar, which would rule out essentially all humans.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Yes, the whole thing from July 2017. Did you read the update on the lawsuit that I posted?
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
Chris Bittner Is there evidence Mikkelson is a liar?
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Bittner's comment.
There is no reason why the personal legal troubles of the company's owner should necessarily affect the reliability of the information contained on the site. Do you have any reliable information to suggest that the site's facts are in error or biased?

Here's a more recent article on the issue, which makes it clear that this is an argument between shareholders and the former owner, who is still on the Board, and it's about management and profit-taking and such, not about the content of the site. https://www.poynter.org/news/snopes-has-its-site-back-legal-battle-over-its-ownership-will-drag-months
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's photo.
Hope you feel better soon!
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's video.
I would have been entering 11th grade, so Fall of 1985. Whitney, you would indeed have been 10. Wow.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Tim just so you know, Russ is not a Boomer. He and I went to college together. We are "Gen X".
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Yup!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
I am loving these updates from all of you! I hope everyone else posts as well. Great idea, Marcy!

I left Geology in 2014 and went into cyber security. I’m loving my job in so many ways. Kids are big now (10 & 12) and we’re doing great, still in Bellingham. 🙂
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Adam Klein you and Tim would get along well, I think. :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Tim, I agree that your substantive argument was a good response.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Both of you are intelligent people and I respect both of you.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Let's all try to refrain from name calling, please. We can disagree, even vehemently, without resorting to that kind of thing.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
That's awesome. I loved them tonight!
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
Yeah, they rock!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own video.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
John: Megan wanted you to see this.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own video.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own video.
Ed Hirsch have you seen a funk-jazz-marching band before? Also Jeremy, Whitney, Joanne, Judy
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's photo.
Wow - awesome!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Yes! We are very interested! Let's talk about it more. I'll PM you.
Dave Hirsch commented on Maialisa Vanyo's photo.
Laurel wants to do this! Can you hook us up?
Dave Hirsch replied to Emily Borda's comment.
It's part of the YMCA Adventure Camp. It's a pre-Junior Counselor program. http://www.whatcomymca.org/leaders-in-training.html
Dave Hirsch commented on Chris Rubio's photo.
Go Josiah!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's photo.
Why did you sleep in the hot tub? 😉
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Gary Good Exactly. They will buy less soybeans now that the tariff is in effect. Basically the US had a huge sale, and now has hiked up our prices way above everybody else. China bought a ton at the "sale" price, but will not be buying at our tariff-inflated prices.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gary Good's post.
They bought a whole bunch so that they could get them before the tariffs kicked in. This is a one-time, temporary thing.
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
I know, right‽
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Yeah, that's awesome. Let's all remember that political success isn't about how we can all build a better society together, it's about getting the other team really angry and frustrated about something.

Boy do I remember the salad days of the Obama administration, when the frustration and anger of conservatives were celebrated on the left by...nobody at all that I knew.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Couple blocks from home
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Just now
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
Why not? It sounds like fun...for me.
Dave Hirsch commented on Sean Bruna's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on American Scientist's photo.
Hmm. Unless I'm mistaken, this is not, as the caption says "an approximate bell curve from rolling dice", but is rather an enumeration of the various possible rolls. If it were the former, there would be duplicates and the curve wouldn't be so perfect.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
It was a great weekend!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Pastry Cream

Ingredients:

- 2 cup half-and-half
- 1/2 cup sugar, (3 1/2 ounces)
- salt
- 5 egg yolks
- 3 tablespoon cornstarch
- 4 tablespoon cold unsalted butter, (1/2 stick) , cut into 4 pieces
- 1 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract

Directions:

1. Heat the half-and-half, 6 tablespoons of the sugar, and the salt in a medium heavy-bottomed saucepan over medium heat until simmering, stirring occasionally to dissolve the sugar.

2. Meanwhile, whisk the egg yolks in a medium bowl until thoroughly combined. Whisk in the remaining 2 tablespoons sugar and whisk until the sugar has begun to dissolve and the mixture is creamy, about 15 seconds. Whisk in the cornstarch until combined and the mixture is pale yellow and thick, about 30 seconds.

3. When the half-and-half mixture reaches a full simmer, gradually whisk the simmering half-and-half into the yolk mixture to temper. Return the mixture to the saucepan, scraping the bowl with a rubber spatula; return to a simmer over medium heat, whisking constantly, until a few bubbles burst on the surface and the mixture is very thick and glossy, about 30-60 seconds. Off the heat, whisk in the butter and vanilla. Strain the pastry cream through a fine-mesh sieve set over a medium bowl. Press plastic wrap directly on the surface to prevent a skin from forming and refrigerate until cold and set, at least 3 hours or up to 2 days.
Dave Hirsch commented on Anya Binsacca's post.
Pastry cream. Make a berry dessert with it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mark Cronan's comment.
But also, JD, there's a collective action problem with your idea that "If everyone rejected party and instead rewarded independent politicians, the parties would wither." While that is tautologically correct, it's also the case that if 20% of the electorate rejects parties, then that just causes those 20% to lose political power (unless the parties are perfectly balanced).

There's a reason that parties have formed in every large political system: because they work. To take a de minimus example: suppopse you have three people who have random views on any question, and get to vote. Ties are broken by random draw. Normally they would each win 1/3 the time. However, if two of them get together and agree to vote together on all the questions (and flip a coin to decide whose position to support), then they individually will get their way half the time.

To put this another way: suppose there are no parties, and you have an idea about how to solve some societal ill. You can't do anything alone; you have to get folks on your side. You do this and maybe get your idea enacted. Next time someone in that group has an idea, they will naturally gravitate to those that acted in concert the last time. Boom, you have a party.

In order to *not* have parties, it takes serious, constant, and ongoing societal and individual work.

I would like to see more maverick politicians who would generally go along with one party, but not exclusively. There used to be more of those, but our society has become so tribalized that they are largely gone. I think the solution has to be from the ground upwards: by killing partisan gerrymandering, causing there to be more competitive, mixed districts, so that representatives have constituencies that are not so dramatically tilted to one side or another.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mark Cronan's comment.
Sure - the original article is good, and I basically support the anti-partisan viewpoint it expresses. I haven't read the Froomkin piece referenced there yet, but I will. I was jumping on Mark's "truth has a liberal bias" thing from up in the thread, I suppose. That is the aspect of this that gets to me the most.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mark Cronan's comment.
I totally disagree, J.D., because the parties are real, no matter how we might hate them, and they will continue to act as parties, and there is very real benefit to politicians to act as parties.

And while those generalities do not apply to each of you, that doesn't make them any less true or powerful. It's clear that when Republicans control the government, they act on those generalities, to block things designed to fight climate change for example.

For us to close our eyes to the realities of the partisan landscape will not change the effects of the partisan landscape on our lives.

Now, most of your writing here focuses on journalism, and the habits of journalists, and I can get behind some of that.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mark Cronan's comment.
The problem I see here, is that one side of the political spectrum is openly anti-intellectual, and that leads, inexorably, to discounting actual facts by that side more than by the other side. That means that while truth doesn't exactly have a liberal bias, the left tends to value truth more than does the right. Some examples:
- the Right openly discounts the facts on climate change
- the Right for a long time discounted the facts about smoking risks
- the Right resists even collecting data on gun deaths
- as a matter of tactics, the Right cares so little about truth that they fund institutions that exist solely to create scientific falsehoods to muddy the waters (cf smoking and climate change)

To be fair, here are some counterexamples, which are smaller in their scope of impact, less exclusive to the Left, and less dominant in liberal circles:
- the Left discounts research on the safety of GMOs
- the Left generally overstates the risks and understates the benefits of nuclear power
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeff Olsen's comment.
Well, maybe it's because the consequences are so different: the "Actual" pollution that you can see makes you sad, and keeps you from having a nice clean beach to visit. On the other hand, the actual rising levels of greenhouse gasses will, unchecked, cause whole regions to become nearly unlivable. Don't make any long-term investments in Phoenix, for example. So, I support addressing the more serious issue, not just the one we can see with our eyes.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jenny Harter's photo.
Oh, wow. Haven't tasted Amy's in so many years!
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
I saw it this morning. It's a little too biting and not enough funny for me this time.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to John Kammenga's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
Thanks, Jennifer Armstrong Werner! I didn't realize that Cantwell hadn't yet come out against Kavanaugh. I just called Cantwell's office in DC (202) 224-3441 to voice my opposition to anyone who isn't Merrick Garland.
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
That's funny, Michael, how you focus on Tim's compassion for you, individually. How his statements hurt your delicate feelings: "you believe I'm an evil person just because I disagree with you". Tim is talking about how your laughing at Japanese internment shows that you don't care about the suffering of thousands (you wrote "interment camps were brought about by your favorite socialist president, Franklin Roosevelt Ha ha ha!"). Funny.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch Thanks, Mom. Yes.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Oh! Send me the recipe, too.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
What a great trip! Thanks Mom & Dad!
Dave Hirsch commented on Diane Marzonie's photo.
That's so cool!
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Courtney I think we're approaching the natural close of this discussion, but I want to add that I agree we should have strong borders. That said, I think that a guest worker program such as other countries use, would be a good solution to the problem of not having enough US citizens willing to work for the wages that we as a society pay immigrant labor for things like picking vegetables.
I also think that the best (most pragmatic, effective, and humane) way to solve the problem is by targeting employers rather than the immigrants themselves.
Finally, I think that the numbers do not support this being an urgent problem. Illegal immigration hasn't been rising for a while, and probably peaked about a decade ago: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/25/as-mexican-share-declined-u-s-unauthorized-immigrant-population-fell-in-2015-below-recession-level/ and https://cis.org/Shifting-Tide-Recent-Trends-Illegal-Immigrant-Population So I don't think these data support spending huge amounts of time, political capital, or effort at solving what appears to be less of a problem as time goes on.
Dave Hirsch commented on Erin Cargill's photo.
Miss you guys! Hope you're well!
Dave Hirsch replied to Pete Stelling's comment.
Thanks, Pete. I gave them a call.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lori Nash's post.
Umm...Not really. All the Constitution says about impeachable offenses is "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors". What this should mean is up to the House (in a real political sense), but if we want to know what it should mean, well, scholars do not agree: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/1999/02/what_are_high_crimes_and_misdemeanors.html
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Courtney: I agree that "the most division in our country was created in the Obama era", however, I disagree that it's Obama's fault. I think it's due to a lot of people who really didn't like a black president. Can you support your implication that the divide is due to Obama's actions?

I think that segregation is schools is a huge problem, and that we should take action to prevent it. However, Trump recently took action that will exacerbate that segregation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/01/11/trump-would-soften-mandates-on-bank-lending-in-poorer-communities/#15a6d97a2b3b
And he is nominating jurists to the Supreme Court who are opposed to efforts to battle segregation. So if you dislike segregation, please come over to the liberal side; the weather is nice here! :)

Can you be more specific about my alleged hypocrisy? I don't understand your allegation enough to respond. Or maybe you are directing that towards Eric or Kyle? Please be more specific.

And I don't see where anybody accused you of being a Republican.
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Thanks for a substantial response, Courtney. Here's what I think:

There's a big difference between calling out "individuals" when they advocate for violence, and calling out the president of the United States when he says things like this at a rally (May 2017): "Try not to hurt him but if you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it." That's a much clearer advocacy of actual violence, and it not from some nobody, it's from the President. So, I still think you have a serious double-standard: when it's your "team", you are blind to advocating violence, and when it's the other "team", you are hyper-sensitive, seeing violence where there is only verbal harassment of those who are already very powerful and don't need to worry about anything other than hurt feelings. You say you "don't condone that sort of speech", but I think you actually do condone it when it's your guy saying it, or at least it's not a big enough deal for you to post about it publicly.

As for the BS from news media, I asked for examples and substantiation of your claim that both sides do it, and you have supplied neither, just a reiteration of your claim ("circus of lies from all major news networks"). Want to back that up with some evidence? The Daily Wire article you linked to doesn't claim to disprove mainstream media stories, except for saying that the policy of separating families is not Trump's but Obama's, which is false (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/23/trump-obama-administration-separate-families-immigration/728060002/). Want to try again, and support your "everybody does it" claim with something more than one bad example?

You suggest that the silencing of opponents (in regards to Fascism evidence) is the same for both Trump and Obama, and you suggest that Obama's strong whistleblower prosecution record supports that. I would point out that Obama prosecuted leakers to the media very actively (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jan/10/jake-tapper/cnns-tapper-obama-has-used-espionage-act-more-all-/), but there is no evidence to suggest that these prosecutions were politically motivated. Can you provide any? Without it, that makes the comparison to Fascist behavior off-base at least. In contrast, Trump very clearly is trying to silence and discredit independent media itself, in order to increase his political power (https://www.cbsnews.com/video/lesley-stahl-60-minutes-president-trump-press/).

And although it doesn't fit your limited definition of Fascism, I think this is a very clear and chilling parallel: Trump in an executive order, will have regular publications of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants (https://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-voice-victim-reporting/). That looks an awful lot like the German propaganda painting Jews as criminals (https://books.google.ca/books?id=yMlcJ7QkM_QC&lpg=PA137&dq=Institute+for+Study+of+the+Jewish+Question+crime&pg=PA137#v=onepage&q=Institute%20for%20Study%20of%20the%20Jewish%20Question%20crime&f=false).

Now, I don't think that Trump is a Nazi, but I do think that there are real, serious parallels between how Fascists solidified power, and how Trump is doing so.
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Klein's post.
Oh no! That sucks!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Rubio's post.
I loved Siena! Have fun!
Dave Hirsch commented on Diane Marzonie's photo.
It took me a while to figure out that you aren't heating the inside to 102°F when it is 72° outside.
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Well, Courtney, you've got a lot there. I'll try to address these one at a time.

Maxine Waters said this: "Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere." I don't see any advocacy of violence there in that statement.

You seem very concerned about inciting violence though, so why haven't you said anything publicly about these very clear statements that actually clearly do incite violence: "You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out in a stretcher, folks...I’d like to punch him in the face, I tell ya." (Feb 2016), and "Maybe he should have been roughed up because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing." (Nov 2015), and "If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously." (Feb 2016), and more. Did you complain publicly about these statement? I don't recall seeing that. So, I don't think you have the standing to complain about Waters' suggesting that Trump Cabinet members should be shouted at. (https://mashable.com/2016/03/12/trump-rally-incite-violence/)

And as for the fascist stuff, why do you get to define Fascism as being ONLY "finding ways to use the law to silence people"? Do you some documentation for that being the one and only hallmark of Fascism? Eric listed a number of real documented parallels between early Fascist government actions from the 1930s and Trump, and you have not refuted any of them, just declared that they don't fit with your definition of Fascism. That said, Trump has clearly advocated using the power of government to silence his political opponents: He repeatedly advocated putting his opponent in jail ("Lock her up"). He has advocated shutting down media that is not sufficiently friendly to him (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918112884630093825 and https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/918267396493922304 for example)

You have suggested that you think "both sides" of the news media make stuff up, and implied that they do it equally. Please substantiate this claim in some way, because I think you are totally wrong.

Finally, Merrick Garland: After Scalia died, Obama (on March 16, 2017) nominated Merrick Garland (a centrist judge whom many Republicans had previously supported as a potential Supreme Court Justice). McConnell refused to allow the Senate to vote on the nomination for the whole rest of the term, nearly a year. This was unprecedented in the history of the USA. They claimed Biden had suggested it would be right, but that is a willful misreading of what Biden meant (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/17/context-biden-rule-supreme-court-nominations/).
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Russ Granger Eric made a string of substantive claims about specific behaviors that are parallel to fascist regimes from the past; you’ve ignored those and just focused on the word. What do you think of the specific claims he made? Do you think those parallels are unwarranted? If so, can you tell me why, preferably with some specific and detailed arguments?
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
I would prefer “fascist” or “authoritarian” to “Nazi”
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Landed in Seattle!
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Russ Granger can you be more specific and clear about your “Maxine” allegation here? It’s too vague for me to respond to.
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
Russ Granger it is reasonable to argue that any Republican Senator who went along with the Merrick Garland travesty is not upstanding...and that’s all of them I believe. I don’t think that Eric meant every registered Republican, just the ones who are relevant to the political process of confirming a Supreme Court Justice.
I don’t hold with the “nazi” moniker.
Dave Hirsch replied to Eric Steig's comment.
My buddy suggests (hopes) that one Republican might stand up and block anyone but Merrick Garland.
Dave Hirsch commented on Tom Weinstein's post.
Seriously, wouldn't that be nice?
Dave Hirsch commented on Anya Binsacca's post.
Seriously!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
The water was about 105 degrees Fahrenheit, even out where we were.
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
So cute!! Jealous!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Todd Koetje's post.
It was! I miss you guys! Maybe the first week in July? (sans kids)
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Washington 2A's photo.
Interesting. I don’t see the plain term “assault rifle” anywhere in the text of the initiative, although I do see “semiautomatic assault rifle”, which is defined as follows: “any rifle which
utilizes a portion of the energy of a firing cartridge to extract
the fired cartridge case and chamber the next round, and which
requires a separate pull of the trigger to fire each cartridge.”

I’m not a gun expert; does that .22 in the photo fit such a definition?

Here’s the text of the bill: https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/finaltext_1531.pdf

Definitions start on page 23.

Can somebody cite the actual text of the initiative that supports the claim in this photo?
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Pete Stelling's comment.
This particular piece has more Cpx than most.
Dave Hirsch replied to Pete Stelling's comment.
Olivine Pools trail, north side of Maui. Some parts have phenocrysts about 1 cm! Really cool! About 10% Olivine, 70% Opx, 30% Cpx with the overall distribution being about 90% phenocrysts.
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Pete Stelling?
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Pete Stelling?
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Thanks Morgan! Jeremy took it and waited for just the right moment.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Instagram made it square. Here’s the full height with the moon and torches.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
I think so!
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Maui for four days and Kona for seven! My first time here!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
You’ve been warned! 😉
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Europe for a year.
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Thanks! You too! Damn I’m jealous of you and Dexter!
Dave Hirsch replied to Andi Zamora's comment.
This is quite possible, but not unusual. Olivine (the mineral name for the gem peridot) is fairly common in basaltic lavas such as those that make up most of the Hawaiian Islands.
Dave Hirsch commented on Cambria Denison Reinsborough's photo.
Love these books!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Wendy Sullivan's photo.
And here I thought that quote was just from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory! What a barbarian I am.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I missed "Come On, Eileen" by a month. DANG!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
It's been about a month, so he's about twice this size now. I'll take another photo tonight.
Dave Hirsch commented on Andi Zamora's post.
When I got mine, there's was only one choice.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch I don’t see an option for a kid size
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Just got one for Laurel who gets sick sometimes. I bet there are curvy roads that we'll be on as well!
Dave Hirsch commented on City of Bellingham, Washington - Government's photo.
I've done it in the past. It's harmless fun. Friday was a bit chilly, though.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
If we're talking about the politics of it, I'd say it's a win for the Democrats. The guy is running as an independent but claims to be basically libertarian, so he ought to pull votes more from the GOP than the Democrats.
If we're talking about policy, McAuliffe did the right thing (IMO), and even if there's an unfortunate political consequence, it was still right.
Dave Hirsch replied to Andrew Manoogian's comment.
I think we have to entertain the notion that the employee's speech in each case was just as reprehensible to the owners' ears, and (in the view of the owners) likely to cause just as much harm to the business.
I don't hold those views, but I can see how a set of rich conservative team owners might. I actually think the new NFL policy is fine.
Dave Hirsch replied to Andrew Manoogian's comment.
If they are hypocritical for liking the second but disliking the first, then anybody on our side who likes the first but dislikes the second is also hypocritical.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
Um, this cuts both ways.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Good thing they are the Law And Order party.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Stephen J. Berlinsky's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lori Nash's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Stephen J. Berlinsky's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Stephen J. Berlinsky's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Rob Knode's comment.
Rob Knode turns out it’s likely Flagg Mountain we were on.
Dave Hirsch replied to Rob Knode's comment.
No: Goat Mountain maybe? Definitely along Goat Creek for most of it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Andi Zamora's comment.
It was closed, so no. 😞
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's video.
Happy Anniversary, Mom & Dad!! 50 years! Can’t wait to celebrate together next month!
Dave Hirsch replied to John Ellingsen's comment.
Yup!
Dave Hirsch replied to Don Fine's comment.
Don Fine - Were you upset about the Chinese trade imbalance when Obama was in office? Did you write about how awful it was? If not, why give Larsen grief about it? Maybe the trade imbalance just isn't that important in the larger scheme of things?
Dave Hirsch replied to Scott Linneman's comment.
It was! Drizzly but fun!
Dave Hirsch commented on Rebecca Solomon Means's post.
Audiobooks!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
One
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Actually that’s an issue; I’m not pulling out the whole floor, so I’m going to have to build it back up to the same level after with extra plywood.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
So far there are 5 layers of flooring and we still haven’t hit the real subfloor
Dave Hirsch commented on Chadd Nyerges's post.
This sucks. If only there had been more guns in the hands of the teachers there...
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Cool! Wonder what its story was to get up to Bellingham?
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
Yay! Good call
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Only true if you ignore the marginal cost savings associated with the carbon savings, I bet.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
Dang! We'll be in Hawaii on a big extended family trip.
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
What system is automatically trimming it? Seems unlikely.
Dave Hirsch replied to Lukas Pittman's comment.
You can still stop by the new place later on if you want. 2337 Yew Street Road.
Dave Hirsch replied to Lukas Pittman's comment.
Ah well, it's cool. We'll manage.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Change of plans: Helpers needed Saturday 9:30-12:30. Still have pizza and beer after.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Actually, no. Current NIST recommendations specifically say that passwords should NOT be changed regularly.

https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/08/18/nists-new-password-rules-what-you-need-to-know/

or if you want the raw hard-to-read version:

https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html#sec6

with the relevant text being "Verifiers SHOULD NOT require memorized secrets to be changed arbitrarily (e.g., periodically). "
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
Current recommendations would replace "Change them often" with "Don't use ones that other people have used already" :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Felicia Crawford's comment.
Second Dark Tower as a good example of what Lukas is looking for.
Dave Hirsch replied to Cristin Andersen's comment.
Agree that it's amazing, but it's not finished or worked out yet, and seems unlikely to do so in one more book, so I don't think that's a good response to Lukas' query.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jackie Caplan-Auerbach's post.
And you know what else would be an even greater disaster? If the earth did not keep orbiting the sun: we'd be pulled into it and incinerate. Wow!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Okay, I just read the text myself and I was wrong. You don't have to be claiming to represent the USA. Kerry is wrong on this, and could be prosecuted under the Logan Act. Mea Culpa.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Will Jacobus that is not covered by the Logan Act, as far as I know. Only claiming to represent the USA.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I disagree that they are substantially different or that what the Trump team did was the same as what Obama's team did, because the Trump team's actions served to undercut then-US policy, whereas I don't think there's any evidence of the same on Obama's part.
However, I do think that Kerry should stay out of this, for political, not legal/Logan reasons.

Now the Logan Act only prohibits only citizens claiming to represent the USA. Kerry's actions, while wrongheaded in my view, don't appear that he is claiming to represent the USA. Are there reports to that effect? The Fox News report you post here doesn't make that claim. Any citizen is totally within his or her rights to give advice to a foreign government, or to lobby a foreign government for or against a given action, so long as they don't claim to represent the USA.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Russ - I agree that if the report is accurate, Kerry's actions were wrong. Interesting that you didn't seem to care so much about the Logan Act nor call for jail time when the Trump team did the same kind of thing...
Dave Hirsch replied to Joel O'Connor's comment.
(I had to look up the term)
Dave Hirsch replied to Guillermo Navarro's comment.
Jealous!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Hannah Schell's post.
Congratulations! Wow!
Dave Hirsch replied to Jason Fiber's comment.
Oh, debt and I are old friends. We go way back. I think we'll be together for a long time to come. We're like BFFs.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Here are some human-based studies from the references of the first article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120098
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7403744
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8506460
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9181439

Also, I think that you should consider what kind of evidence would be strong enough for you before you dig into the literature. You are discounting all animal studies out of hand, for reasons that are unclear to me given that there are fairly well-supported rationales for using animals as animal models for human biology, and that some of the cited studies are on primates. Also, review studies are not meritless in science yet you seem to discount this type of study.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
I believe the value lies in allowing the older kids to start school later (I believe that the same buses are used for all of them, so they can't all start at the same time). I know that there is very good research on older kids needing to sleep later to perform well, so that is legitimate. What I don't get is why the middle school starts later than high school, because I don't think there is good evidence for middle schoolers needing to sleep later.
So I don't think the issue is that little kids see any benefit from the early start, but that teens really need the late start to succeed, and little kids aren't harmed by the early start, at least not so much as to tip the balance their way.

http://sleepcenter.ucla.edu/sleep-and-teens
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2017/08/23/pediatricians-say-teens-should-sleep-in-schools-wont-let-them/?utm_term=.dfe5856ba04d
https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-news/teens-school-and-sleep-complex-relationship
Dave Hirsch replied to Joumana Youssef's comment.
We went to high school together!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
(And that change was at my instigation)
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
I hate Visio. So much. There are other programs that do similar things that are so much better. At work, we used to use Visio, but have switched to LucidChart, a web application diagramming tool.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
There was once a house of leaves, and a lemon tree grew in the yard...
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Yes, as I thought: you need an app.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Mark Cronan She has an iPhone.
Dave Hirsch commented on Oreet Herbst's post.
I've been using Google Voice for years. It's perfect for what you describe, although I'm not 100% sure about outbound calling on the number. Might need an app for that.
Dave Hirsch commented on Alt National Park Service's photo.
No. The planet will be fine, no matter what we do. Don’t fight climate change for the planet’s sake, fight it for your descendants’ sakes.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
Sorry, if it's not boiled, it's not a bagel; it's a small torus-shaped loaf(?) of bread. ;) (Why, yes, I *am* a bagel snob; thanks for noticing!:p )
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I just keep laughing out loud at this. Every time.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Definitely!
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Sorry, but I think it's still bogus. Now if they did a trial where they moved the same device around the three locations, and had an automatic system to add the water, I might believe it. http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/04/06/myth-3-does-water-swirl-counter-clockwise-in-the-southern-hemisphere/
Dave Hirsch replied to Chara Caruthers's comment.
Chara: you may be amused to know that I first learned to decorate cakes in a program I organized as an RA way back in Rieber Hall!
Dave Hirsch replied to Sandy Cartwright's comment.
Jellyfish holding the candles.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Yes, Mom, I did. I got some ideas online though after I decided on a jellyfish though.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
I’m hopeful that he had an affair with a 17-year old or something like that, given the information available now (“victim” not “victims”, and was underage but now isn’t). Hoping that instead of messing with little kids in his care.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I hope that he had a relationship with a 17-year old or something. Not horrible toddler-related things.
Dave Hirsch replied to Shad Malone's comment.
Touché. But you still need a drive running an operating system to connect to the cloud. Although in that case, maybe it's not worth backing up the drive. Hmm...
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
This is my media computer mainly. So we use it to watch movies, hence "Popcorn".
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
Tom, I don't consider RAID a substitute for backups. I advocate both if possible. RAID addresses drive failures of course, but backups save you from a wider range of issues (e.g., ransomware). I'm sure you know this, but other readers may not. I have a little home NAS that stores my backups among other things, and it of course uses RAID.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
So happy you got it! I love Los Alamos, and that part of NM in general.
Dave Hirsch commented on Rose Bloom's post.
Awesome! Congratulations! Is this *that* job?
Dave Hirsch commented on Irena Lambrou, Bellingham Real Estate's post.
Wait: $800,000 a month seems a little pricey! 🙂
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Bruce Hamilton that's a fair point, I suppose. But doesn't filing taxes also serve as a proof of citizenship as well? By which I mean that your citizenship status will be revealed when you file taxes (not that only citizens have to file). So they two are still analogous.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Isle of Dogs is weird and good. Very Wes Anderson.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
This is false. When do you have to prove you are insured? Not all the time: only to receive certain services (healthcare) or to perform certain acts (drive a car). When do you have to prove you are a citizen? To receive certain services (e.g., Medicare) or perform certain acts (voting). This is not hypocrisy; they are pretty analogous.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
I think you meant to say “letting”?
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Wow! Looking sharp!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dan - If an attacker has your login to your service (O365, Gmail, your private but internet-accessible SMTP server), then they can log into your server, send mail as you, and it will be authenticated with SPF, DKIM and DMARC.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Dan - No it doesn't.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Tom, that's a fair point, and I don't discount DMARC, but I just think it (this news item) is a tempest in a teapot, and right-thinking liberals should select something else about Trumpistan to get exercised about.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
And my understanding is that they were missing DMARC only, but had DKIM in place, no?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I deploy SPF/DKIM/DMARC for many organizations as part of my job (I probably maintain 20ish of these, including getting delegated RUF reports), and the key piece of your correct comment is "system that respects it". Many do not, and DKIM by itself achieves 90% of the email authenticity protection one desires. Advising recipients as to what you think ought to be done with potentially fraudulent messages purporting to be from you, is just that: advice. They do not have to follow it. This is why I put far more value on DKIM than DMARC. DKIM is the heavy lifting in terms of distinguishing legitimate from bogus messages; DMARC is the icing on the cake.
Dave Hirsch commented on Tom Weinstein's post.
I'm not that impressed/concerned about this. DMARC is advisory at best. If they don't have DKIM/SPF, that's a much bigger deal.
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's photo.
So jealous!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
The difference is that fire extinguishers do not pose their own, separate hazards and risks, just by having them in the house. Bad analogy.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jay Bettinger's photo.
I was so sad to hear about this, and so glad to have known him.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Sorry, but just as I try to hold my conservative friends accountable for the things they post, I must do so to my liberal ones. This is a silly, irrational post/pic/meme. It hardly needs saying that shooting schoolchildren is also illegal, and punishable with far worse penalties than violating hunting rules, I'm sure. So, it is false to say that geese have more protection under US law than schoolchildren.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I agree about Pegg. Love him. One think I liked was the evil woman enforcer. You don't usually see girl-next-door-ish-pretty women cast as the heavy. That was cool.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I did play Adventure on Atari 2600 in my misspent youth, and found the easter egg. My kids were asking me how I found out about the easter egg, and I honestly don't recall. Probably a friend showed me how to find it. Maybe Tom Weinstein?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Kyle Davis I can see that, actually. They are very different. I think younger folks would prefer the movie, because they don't have the connections to the 80s stuff missing from the movie. Even you, Kyle, probably never played Joust in the arcade, or Zork on PC or saw War Games in the theater, so that stuff in the book probably didn't have the same resonance for you as it did for me.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joel O'Connor's comment.
I agree.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
There are cool effects and cinematography that you would miss on the small screen. I'd say theater.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
So, the kids really liked it, and I did too, but it was a dim shadow of the book.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch it’s a shrug
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
...and the kids. Forgot about them for a minute. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
New house. Staying in Bellingham.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Alicia Wilson do you have any evidence for this assertion? I’m very skeptical, because to whom are they selling this very valuable information (a “live” number)? Somebody who wants to call you to sell you a real product! I don’t see how the majority of these callers can possibly be in the business of finding live numbers, because that would mean that they have few if any buyers for their product.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Andrew Lee I’m cool with that.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Let’s assume all this is true. I decry it and agree with you. However, these politicians are not in power. How about you chiming in on some of the similar (and, to my mind, far worse) ways that the current administration is profiting directly from their positions of power? Why only say “they did it, too!”? Are you trying to minimize what is happening today, Russ? If you believe that enriching oneself by virtue of one’s political office is wrong, why not say so also about this administration? I believe it is wrong, and if Kerry or Biden tries to hold office again, their kids’ fund should be scrutinized carefully. What do you believe?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Kenny Alford I haven’t. It’s still viable, no matter the labor cost, so long as that cost is greater than zero. With smaller labor costs, the number of us who need to waste their time increases, or the time wasted per call recipient increases. The basic strategy is still sound.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Gloria Kelley I disagree. If lots of people are wasting their time, then the business has to become unprofitable. They will either have to pay their workers more money per dollar of income (if the workers are paid hourly), or the workers will stop making enough money at the job (if the workers are paid on commission).

Suppose the ratio of potentially interested suckers to informed skeptics is 1:1000. Right now, they spend almost no money calling 1000 people to find the one who might be receptive to their pitch, because computers handle the weeding-out process. If each of those 1000 people required a minute of worker time to weed out, then the calculus changes: now it costs them something like 16 person-hours to find the sucker. How does that possibly make financial sense for them as a business?!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Thanks Mom. Love you too.
Dave Hirsch commented on Maialisa Vanyo's photo.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Thomas Mack Maine I haven’t noticed any change since I began this, so I disagree.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Katie Himmel the point is not to penalize the poor schlubs who make the calls, or even necessarily the businesses, but the whole business model here. If we collectively waste enough of their time, then it won’t be profitable any more. The more the schlubs take from the business, the better!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I know this, and it’s a risk, but it’s worth it to me to make them waste money
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Russ Granger A while ago, you asked me to list my gun control goals: here they are again:

1. Ban on all semi-automatic weapons, with exceptions for law enforcement and shooting ranges (which ought to be allowed to have all types of weapons, even fully automatic ones, for temporary check-out and use on the range, for fun).
2. Universal gun registration and licensing, similar to what we require for driving a car: proof of competency to operate the item safely and correctly, including meeting a bar for marksmanship.
3. Legal requirement for owners to store their guns safely (locked, unloaded, with ammo locked separately).
4. Private insurance required for gun ownership, with liability for damages if an owned gun is used intentionally or accidentally to harm someone.
5. Universal background checks.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson interesting. Please define what you mean by violence in this context: what specific statistic or action constitutes “violence” in this case?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson I get that there are other gun arguments, but Russ’ initial post was about hunting/hunters and the idea that folks like me want to take away all guns.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson I meant in regards to gun ownership, not immigration, fashion, literature, or any other sphere of human endeavor. Sorry if that wasn’t clear from the context.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
This is a bad argument, akin to a straw man. A good argument would be to engage with the strongest version of your opponents’ position. Which in this case is not “ban all guns” (implicitly assumed here) but something like “do like Japan does”. I’m not against guns for hunting. Good job, hunters!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
True, but mostly I get to a person while I'm doing other things at work, then just set the phone down and let them talk to the air until they hang up.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
David Nicholson I think both are true.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
As David points out, her primary claim is false: Black gun ownership to arm them against the Klan was not the purpose of the NRAs founding. And in an statement about rewriting history, it surprising that she wasn’t more careful.

More important however is that regardless of how the NRA behaved a century ago, today its policies and actions are demonstrably harming the black community and so it’s completely rational for blacks to oppose the NRA, as they overwhelmingly do. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/jun/05/harry-alford/nra-founded-fight-kkk-black-leader-says/
Dave Hirsch commented on The New York Times's post.
I still get a ton, even though I'm on the DNC list. My current strategy is to get to talk to somebody, then waste as much of their time as possible. If lots of people do this, their business model will become unprofitable.
Dave Hirsch commented on Greg Bettinger's post.
My thoughts are with you, Greg.
Dave Hirsch replied to Brady O'Brien's comment.
I know, right?
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Russ Granger's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Courtney Hicks's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Courtney Hicks's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Courtney Hicks's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Courtney Hicks's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
It is an uncanny resemblance.
Dave Hirsch commented on Mathew Satuloff's post.
Bummer! That sucks.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Heads up to family: Judy Greenberg Hirsch, Ed Hirsch, Jeremy Hirsch, Whitney Klein
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Did mine last night! Attackers will use that data to try to steal enough of your personal information to claim a tax refund for you and have it sent to themselves. This is a common type of attack, but the wealth of publicly available financial information about many (all?) of us makes this attack even more likely.
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Klein's photo.
Go Asher!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Not very
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Missing Emily Mullen!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lindy Mullen's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lori Nash's post.
Loved it!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
So sorry you’re still sick Mom!
Dave Hirsch commented on Eric Rager's photo.
Are you in Seattle?
Dave Hirsch commented on Rose Bloom's post.
Inkscape is free Illustrator and Gimp is free Photoshop. More or less.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Easy as pie!
Dave Hirsch commented on Erin Cargill's photo.
Happy New Year! Glad to
see you guys are healthy enough to be outside walking!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Thanks Pete Stelling!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
This is awesome! Thanks mom!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
It dried even more blue!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Michael Paige So I should not ask for internal consistency? You may be able to handle that, but it keeps me from enjoying the movie. That is (to get back to Shoshana's question) one of the reasons why I don't think it's near the best of the Star Wars movies.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Michael Paige Yes. Within the story, it makes no sense. They offered no explanation, visual, or explicit, for why they seemed to be falling under the influence of gravity. This, like the kamikaze jump to light speed, is lazy storytelling.
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
I just thought it was an interesting article. I would love to see Warren go for it.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I don’t think it’s ever been that bad.
Dave Hirsch commented on Shoshana Paige's post.
Mild SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Can anyone think of a stupider core plot element than the release of bombs to fall down onto and destroy the ship...in zero gravity?!? Seriously?! After that, I had little respect for the movie.
Dave Hirsch commented on Gerry Coleman's post.
I admire your commitment, Gerry, but I had no idea you did Track & Field! How did you get into pole vaulting? 😉
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
“I feel weird”

It’s good when your feelings match reality, right?
Dave Hirsch replied to Lukas Pittman's comment.
That is almost exactly the point made in that Slate column I posted above.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Hard to understand.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
[Obligatory IANAL disclaimer]
I get your point, but in the eyes of the law I don't think the content of the speech matters here. I did some reading on this, and it appears to me that the Supreme Court ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette) does not apply here at all: it only applied to *government* forcing people to engage in political speech they disagree with.
The only ways that firing of an NFL player might be illegal is if it violates their employment contract or if the player is employed in one of a few states such as NY or CA that have laws protecting employees' rights to engage in legal activity outside of work. (Although it can be argued that this is legal activity inside of work, and thus those laws do not apply). Otherwise, they are a private business, and aside from the above caveats, they can fire employees for almost any reason at all (not these: http://smallbusiness.findlaw.com/employment-law-and-human-resources/wrongful-termination-laws-illegal-reasons.html).
Not that I think it is right, or ethical, but it is legal.

Other references:
http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2011/11/can-i-be-fired-for-taking-part-in-occupy-protests.html
https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/protester_eng3b_0.pdf
https://lifehacker.com/know-your-rights-when-protesting-during-the-national-an-1818951458
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Well, almost all political speech is protected. Doesn't that mean that if you are right, it's illegal to fire somebody for espousing Nazi or alt-right opinions? For attending the Charlottesville march (assuming not committing actual physical violence themselves, etc.)? Many of those people were fired, I understand.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
Not sure I agree here. There's a big difference between the government forcing somebody to do something, and a private business firing them for not doing it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
J&A were dog-sitting.
Dave Hirsch replied to Tom Weinstein's comment.
I agree, but making that point seems like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still bad, just somewhat less bad. Franken doesn't seem to be making that point either, for (I assume) the same reason.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Why is the coffee table outside?
Dave Hirsch replied to Jennifer Armstrong Werner's comment.
That’s a very good point. I guess I agree. We should look more at what happened and less about the power imbalance. This would be just as bad with two people who had no power imbalance.

So, circling around to your original point, I don’t see the relevance of “absolute power corrupts absolutely” to this situation.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jennifer Armstrong Werner's comment.
I disagree. I think there are gradations. And to group all imbalances together obscures the real differences between say, the CEO and a secretary compared to a 5’6” man and a 5’5” woman. Both involve imbalances of power, but they aren’t the same and we shouldn’t treat them equally.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jennifer Armstrong Werner's comment.
I agree that it's wrong. I said it twice. And I agree there is a power imbalance, but far less so than most other sexual harassment incidents in the news lately, and worlds away from "absolute power".
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
Hmm. I don't think this is an "absolute power" thing. This happened before he was in politics, when he was a comedian, on a USO tour. It's wrong, and there may have been some minor power imbalance (they were both minor celebrities; but he was less minor than she was), but this is not the same as those congressmen accused of sexual harassment of their staff members or the recently disclosed episodes of harassment in Hollywood. Those have serious power imbalances, and this doesn't. Again, it was wrong.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
I’m sorry that happened to you Mom; I hope the pain is short-lived.
Dave Hirsch replied to Cori Mahoney's comment.
There is not generally a C equivalent to a single ASM instruction. Sets of ASM instructions correspond to sets of C lines. Here the net effect of the program is putting zero and 1 into memory on the stack (which might correspond to variables the caller is using) and to return 0 (in eax).
Dave Hirsch replied to Cori Mahoney's comment.
Do you mean how in the sense of what the C-language equivalent would be? Or how in the sense of how LEA works?
Dave Hirsch replied to Cori Mahoney's comment.
Bold means action taken at that instruction. Pretty sure this is correct.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Yes. Anything in AT&T syntax that looks like “foo(bar)” is equivalent to foo+bar.
Dave Hirsch replied to Derek Rice's comment.
Saw him at the reunion. He is on Facebook!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joe Snow's post.
Looks like a convoluted way of putting 1 into one argument location and zero into another and returning zero. But that’s just skimming it, without serious work.
Dave Hirsch replied to Cori Mahoney's comment.
What class?
Dave Hirsch commented on Gary Bittner's post.
Totally stealing this.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
I have one just like it at home! I have no idea where or when I got it, but it's a relic.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
This $5 was from an actual buyer.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's photo.
Happy birthday, Asher!
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Michael Hall's post.
Awesome - where?
Dave Hirsch commented on Kurt Kirsch's post.
Al Franken totally rocks!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
No-shaved Halloween night. This was at Clayton Beach just south of town.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I'm sporting those pre-Halloween Wolverine mutton chops!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
This was just five days ago!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Weinstein's post.
To be fair, repealing the individual mandate would save the government money, because it would collapse Obamacare, which costs money. So, in this case, it's not stupid (it's just horrible, cruel policy).
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Gel!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
But the tax rates they discussed are personal income tax rates, not business taxes. However, I get the basic point you are making. I would actually be in favor of dramatically lower business taxes, so long as personal tax rates were raised to compensate.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
This was an argument about people, not businesses. The bottom 40% of businesses do not pay zero taxes.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
I like this story. It's funny how the suggestion that the richest 10% ("the tenth reporter" in the story) might just decide to leave. With the suggestion that they would go elsewhere, to another first-world country with lower taxes than the USA for the very rich. I wonder where that might be? Hmm... http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/04/24094317/FT_15.03.27_taxOECD_2013_v2.png
Dave Hirsch commented on Kirsten Rissman's photo.
Love it!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own live video.
Emily Mullen
Dave Hirsch commented on Chris Grizzell's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Donna Marie's comment.
Okay, that *is* pretty good.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Wait, did you want accurate grades? Then, no.
Dave Hirsch commented on Sean Bruna's post.
B-
Dave Hirsch commented on Lori Nash's post.
The Good Place has been keeping us in stitches lately.
Dave Hirsch commented on Guillermo Navarro's photo.
How long are you here?
Dave Hirsch commented on Guillermo Navarro's photo.
WTF? You are in Seattle and didn't call me?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch yes
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
h/t Joel O'Connor
Dave Hirsch commented on Cassie Dartt's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Janet Brown Lee's comment.
I wasn't offended! I thought we were having a good discussion.
Dave Hirsch replied to Christy Salcido's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
I noticed! Clever!
Dave Hirsch commented on Tom Weinstein's post.
I saw it.
Dave Hirsch commented on Greg Bettinger's post.
I hope so, Greg!
Dave Hirsch commented on Christy Salcido's photo.
What a great time we had this weekend! Thanks, Christy!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joanne Mizutani-Neuffer's post.
Don Williams check this out.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
He’s coming to brunch tomorrow!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Alan Meyer PM me
Dave Hirsch replied to Tamara Wilder's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
I emailed him - he is coming to the reunion!
Dave Hirsch replied to Thomas Robertson's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
High-res: https://www.dropbox.com/s/sxcjqut8uwyjfru/Germain%201981.jpg?dl=0
Dave Hirsch replied to Thomas Robertson's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
High res: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qxgjp6exvb6g27b/Lawrence1984.jpg?dl=0
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
Hang in there man! You’ll make it.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Ah, thanks. Good to know. It's not far out of the realm of stuff I've seen from some of my Trump-supporting friends that get dredged up as fact. Is the whole site satire? Or just this piece?
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
There's no evidence that there was any "update" to Common Core at all recently. Let's perhaps be a little more careful out there, Courtney?
Dave Hirsch commented on Courtney Hicks's post.
I don't believe it. The story has no useful details (like the name of the Common Core representative or where this thing happened, or a link to the updated standards they reference), and it's not being reported elsewhere so far as I can tell. I think it's probably fake news (by which I mean made up fiction designed to politically inflame).
Dave Hirsch replied to Jennifer Rubio's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
No, these were developed back in the day, but sometime around 2000, I put the best prints into a photo album, ditched the rest, but saved the negatives that they gave you along with the prints, thinking I could always make more prints if I wanted. This week, I put together a rig for taking digitals of those negatives directly with my DSLR. That's what these are.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ailette LLanio Bright's comment.
I'm not surprised - they were negatives in a box in my closet until an hour ago.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
I’m hoping to have Mat and a few others over to my folks’ place in Chatsworth on Sunday for brunch. Garett? Joanne?
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
You have a logo! Wow. And the pictures are great too.
Dave Hirsch replied to Cat Anderson's comment.
Well, I guess it depends on our own goals. If we are trying to decide on what to do about these events, we might make different decisions about the crazy people vs. the politically motivated ones. You might be able to address the crazy people with treatment, but that won't do anything about the politically motivated ones. You might be able to get the FBI to find the politically motivated ones as they talk over their politics with other like-minded people, but that won't work for the crazy ones.
So, that's why I think we need to understand their motives, not just the outcomes: it can help us make better policy. If you want to use the term "terrorists" to cover them all, I guess I don't have a problem with that, so long as our responses go deeper and consider motives.
Dave Hirsch replied to Cat Anderson's comment.
I don't think it's productive to group crazy people who may be trying to scare others (but not for any political purpose) with those trying to cause terror for some larger purpose.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Thx to Emily Mullen for the photo!
Dave Hirsch replied to Cat Anderson's comment.
I actually think it does matter. Terrorists act to achieve political goals. Crazy people act to achieve personal (crazy) goals.
Dave Hirsch replied to Garrett M. Eckerling's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Garrett-you should repost this in the main CHS 87 group
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Play with his paws a lot so you can trim his nails later.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
LED light tablet, two pieces of glass to sandwich the negative flat (not needed for slides), and a macro lens. Need to do post-processing with Photoshop, but not much.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Proko Blazona's comment.
Wait - my mind is a little blown here. How do you, Judy, a friend from my high school, know Wendy, a friend from UCLA?
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
What are you trying to say here, Mom? I know you support vaccinations, so I'm not sure why you would post this.

It's not reasonable to compare the mercury level in a vaccine you get once a year to the level allowed in water, which you consume constantly. The data show overwhelmingly that thimerosal (the mercury-containing preservative used in some vaccines) is NOT HARMFUL at the levels and frequency of vaccines.

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon those who allege or imply that vaccines are harmful to: (a) show the harm with data; and (b) show that the alleged harm is greater than the harm of the disease that the vaccine is used to prevent.
Dave Hirsch replied to Greg Bettinger's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Hang in there, Greg. We'll keep you in our thoughts.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joanne Salustri Cherep's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Aw, thanks, Joanne! It's great to see your family pics as well. It will be fun to catch up.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joanne Salustri Cherep's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Joanne Salustri Cherep no. I think Mathew Satuloff kept in touch with her for a while. Maybe still does.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joanne Salustri Cherep's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
I'm a hoarder? It was in an old album.
Dave Hirsch replied to Christy Salcido's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
I know! It's been so long - looking forward to seeing everybody!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jason Fiber's post.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Jason- I have repeatedly over the many years (albeit half-heartedly) tried to track down Ben. We were friends in Scouts as kids, and I've always wondered where he ended up.
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
How do you know that they are "protesting the flag"? They claim to be respecting the flag, and protesting police brutality.
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Joanne Salustri Cherep We were so little! Weird that my oldest kid is in 6th grade now.
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
And while we're at it, here's Germain: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=984736503250&set=pb.25912316.-2207520000.1506354599.&type=3&theater
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Yes. Here's the whole thing: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100129721269590&set=pb.25912316.-2207520000.1506354599.&type=3
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Jealous!!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Leslie De Haaff Berger check out the link in the post.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Joel O'Connor - have you tried yours yet?
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
In the 90s there was an Apple Evangelist. He hung out on the CodeWarrior (and other) coding forums and was super knowledgeable and helpful, IIRC.

Just looked him up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Kawasaki
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
You may not be able to tell, but the big pink #1 is a piñata, with actual candy and stuff inside! Going to open it with the kids later.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
And Emily got 1st for women!!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Done! About 2:03
Dave Hirsch commented on Beth Rusk's photo.
Happy birthday, Brian!
Dave Hirsch replied to Dug Shelby's comment.
I read this piece as being almost completely *sympathetic* to white evangelicals. Where in the text do you see anger? Please cite specific lines of text, with quotes, to support your claim.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Here's the "after" picture for the fish.
Dave Hirsch replied to Anya Binsacca's comment.
Bring the kids up here next summer and we'll take you hiking!
Dave Hirsch replied to Anya Binsacca's comment.
You have no idea how many there were. We ended up having to just walk on them. (Both blueberries and frogs, it turned out)
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Yup! Still lots of tadpoles in the water.
Dave Hirsch commented on Mary Doherty's post.
I am pleased to see your apostrophes behaving themselves, Mary. Good job. And the message is pretty good, too. ;)
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
I'll see your big helicopter tree sawing device, and raise you a crane-mounted tree eater. https://youtu.be/wlIsHojKVPQ
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Yes-FB offered it up
Dave Hirsch commented on Rebecca Solomon Means's post.
Hope you are all safe!
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
The NY weather in April isn't reliably clear. Texas!!
Dave Hirsch replied to Vicky Graham's comment.
Whitney Klein 4ish, not 7 I think.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
All 360? I'll make the large movie version tonight or tomorrow for you.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joel O'Connor's comment.
Weather in April, though?
Dave Hirsch commented on his own video.
Details: One picture every 15 seconds, for 360 pictures = 90 minutes. Movie is 15 frames per second. Could create a very large version if needed: originals are 2496 x 1664.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own video.
It actually felt done and back to normal when we stopped and packed up, but clearly was not! I might go through the dark photos and enhance then to see what we looked like during totality. Emily Mullen tells me I was jumping up and down with excitement.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
About 360 pictures, Mom.
Dave Hirsch replied to Gerry Coleman's comment.
Optimism is called for, I believe. Even irrational optimism.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's photo.
This one is my favorite. I didn't anticipate how wide the corona would be. Such an amazing experience.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Judy Greenberg Hirsch It turns out the weather is bad there in April. Texas! See my other post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Okay, family: April 8, 2024. Maybe Mazatlan, Mexico? 4 minutes, 17 seconds of totality.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
These are fantastic, Whitney!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
It was amazing!
Dave Hirsch replied to Brady Chandler's comment.
We're staying in Spray. Not particularly busy here either.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeff Weinstein's comment.
Yes. We're ready for Lord of the Flies. Been planning this for a year or so.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeff Weinstein's comment.
Hmm...Actually maybe Trump's statement means he is (at least) a nazi sympathizer sympathizer.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeff Weinstein's comment.
Nazis believe that whites are better. Nazi sympathizers may or may not believe that, but they think that nazis are okay folks. Friends do not have to agree on everything.

That said, I believe that most people would disown a friend who was revealed to be a nazi, because it's so repugnant (obviously).
Dave Hirsch replied to Beth Rusk's comment.
Us, too. Maybe next year!
Dave Hirsch replied to Michael D. Corcoran's comment.
Michael D. Corcoran It appears that you and Tim are at loggerheads: maybe it would clear things up if you would kindly just re-quote the exact words you used to denounce this movement (the white supremacy movement), so he knows what words you are referring to when you say you already did denounce the movement? Or perhaps provide a link to, or screenshot of, the exact post you are referring to?
Dave Hirsch commented on Randy Winn's post.
Russ Granger I just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You appear to be equating Black Lives Matter activists with neo-Nazis, in a moral/ethical sense. You appear to be suggesting that they are equally bad (or good). Is that your position?
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
I don't think this is worth our attention. Look at the image: the train is not hitting the CNN guy; the CNN guy is trying to hold it back in vain. Let's focus on the Nazi-loving aspects of our president instead.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
I disagree, honestly. This does not do anything to "target" an opposing viewpoint. Here are some things that the government could do to target that viewpoint:
- Close down websites espousing that viewpoint
- Arrest people for espousing that viewpoint
- Fine people for espousing that viewpoint
- Intimidate people who espouse that viewpoint

None of that is happening. All that is happening is that the community, through their elected government, is making it clear that it doesn't want to espouse that viewpoint by having a physical representation of that viewpoint on public property.

Look at it this way: if I came to your town and asked to pay for and erect a monument that said "This town is shit", that's my viewpoint. Should I be allowed to have that viewpoint on public land? No. Does the community have to implicitly adopt that viewpoint by hosting my sign? No. If that sign were somehow posted, does the community have the right to remove it? Yes! Does that removal silence my ability to espouse that view? I think not. I still can yell my view in the streets, and I can paint the message on my own private house or I can buy a billboard nearby and put the message up there. I have a huge voice still. The fact that your community doesn't want to make my statement their own has nothing to do with my ability to speak.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
I will ask again: How (more details please!) does this action silence anyone. You claim that it does, but I don't see it.

Here's the kind of explanation I mean: "When they take down the statue of Robert E. Lee, it causes neo-Confederates's Facebook accounts to be closed, and therefore, they no longer have the ability to broadcast their views as widely as before the statue was removed, which means that statue removal causes speech suppression."
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
Charles Kaufmann You and your community have the right to elect representatives who will change that policy. The fact that you elected representatives who allowed that decoration-banning policy is an expression of the views of your community.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
And who exactly does that silence? What speech by what human has been restricted?
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
Even if I grant that actions required by the court system are not the expression of community intent, please explain how taking down a monument, even in that way, silences anyone.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
And your statement is very far from "explain to me in a detailed way".
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
No, we as a community have chosen our system of government and we continue to do so, every election. The acts taken by that government are the expression of our community views.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
Charles Kaufmann I strongly disagree that taking down monuments is in any way "limiting one side of the conversation". Monuments are community speech and the community can choose what kind of statements it wishes to make.

Please explain to me in a detailed way how taking down a monument silences anyone.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
No, that is not a specific instance. But let's say you mean this one: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ten-commandments-monument-removed-from-oklahoma-capitol-grounds/

Do you not support the legal system? That is equally part of our democracy and government as executive and legislative systems.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
If by "democratic" you mean there is a public vote for every action taken by a government, then I agree that they are not democratic, but then neither are most of the actions taken by any government at any level, so that seems to me to be an unreasonable bar to set.

Actions taken by an elected government are democratic in my view.

Can you cite a specific instance of governmental statue removal that you consider undemocratic?
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
Charles Kaufmann No, but I am supporting the drive of governments across the South to remove Confederate monuments.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ken Berg's comment.
People definitely have that right. People also have the right to decide that he, by virtue of the side he was fighting for, is not worthy of honor. If the second group is larger than the first, then they have the right to elect representatives who will remove statues such as this one. That is not the same as removing or denying history: they aren't trying to change the history books or the textbooks to remove mention of him, are they?

Nobody is denying any individual the right to worship Confederate heroes; they are just deciding that they don't want their government to express that view by its action or inaction.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
While you are doing it, see which ones have two-factor authentication. :) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
For the highest-risk sites, having a different ending on a strong base password is not sufficient. If one of your other sites gets compromised (and is not doing their password management correctly) then an attacker could see the system you are using for your password, and guess at the password you use for your bank. For medium-risk sites, go ahead and use the strong base + suffix system. As I mentioned above, low risk sites can have the same password.

The trick is classifying sites, though. Financial stuff is clearly highest risk. If you use two-factor authentication, then email accounts are probably medium risk. If not, then email accounts should be considered high risk.

And as for sentences: that is fine, but don't use stuff like song lyrics or famous quotes or things like that. Also don't use things people can guess from your Facebook data such as "Ilovemaxandasher" or something like that. We tend to overestimate how unique our passwords are. This is why I find https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random so useful: it is a source of random phrases and sentences, which you can use to remove your own ingenuity from the equation.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Try to have fun - try to do some good out there.
Dave Hirsch replied to Chris Grizzell's comment.
That is a good strategy.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
So, I am a big fan of http://correcthorsebatterystaple.net/ as well. It's good for those passwords where you want something memorable but random. I'm also a big fan of finding some phrase on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random which may be more memorable.

You should still have different passwords, especially for the higher-risk accounts (financial and email).

Don't change the passwords unless forced to, or you suspect they've been compromised.

Focus on length, not complexity. It's fine to have some base memorable password, and tack on a "!1" or something to satisfy those systems that haven't gotten with the new program and are still requiring special characters.
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
I'd say that it's okay to have a set of low-risk passwords that are all the same. Your grocery store loyalty account, for example. Accounts that you would rather not be required to log into at all.

I agree that a password manager is the best thing.
Dave Hirsch commented on Dwayne Rogge's post.
I agree with this sentiment. But if you pronounce "gif" wrong, you are dead to me. Dead.
Dave Hirsch commented on Charleeann Smith's post.
Lukas Pittman?
Dave Hirsch replied to Paul Massey's comment.
That was my favorite arcade game.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Looking good!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
That kind. ;)
Dave Hirsch commented on Bellingham Flag's photo.
Love it! Keep making awesome things, man.
Dave Hirsch commented on Rose Bloom's photo.
Looks good, but: stumps!
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeremy Hirsch's comment.
Haha!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
So...I was hoping for 10%, and that's pretty much what I got.
It's not a disaster, and there are lots of connections to the books, and the actors are all pretty good, but it's just way too pat and clear. Part of the appeal of the books was how much we didn't know about how things work. This has not got enough mystery, and also Roland is too much the superhero.

My girlfriend could understand what was going on pretty well, so that's an accomplishment.

So not a complete waste, but it was not true enough to the books to satisfy me.
Dave Hirsch commented on Close Encounters of the Third Kind's video.
Ed Hirsch I don't suppose you'll be getting any residuals from this?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
I hear you, and laughed at Klinger as a kid watching the show...wait, no I didn't. The Klinger stuff was never actually very funny. But the point here is that posting Klinger as a reponse to the trans/military issue might be offensive to actual trans people because it perpetuates the harmful idea that trans women are just men wearing women's clothes (like Klinger was). That wrong idea could have repercussions elsewhere in the political debates over trans rights.
Dave Hirsch commented on Julie Borda Hill's post.
Reposting from my friend Jackie Caplan-Auerbach. Not to be a killjoy on the joke here, but it's worth considering...

In response to Trump's actions regarding transgender troops, many people have been posting a photo of Klinger from M*A*S*H*. I believe that this is being done in good faith, but I would respectfully ask people to remove those posts. The Klinger character was not transgender, he was a man dressing as a women *specifically* because it would get him thrown out of the army. Trans women are not men wearing dresses, they are women whose bodies do not conform with their gender identity; the same is true for trans men. To equate the Klinger character with the thousands of trans people in the military is misleading and has the potential to be very offensive.
Dave Hirsch commented on Morgan Rumpf's post.
Love this! You go, Morgan!
Dave Hirsch commented on Eric Rager's post.
So sorry for you, Eric.
Dave Hirsch replied to Janeen Taylor Vaden's comment.
It's pretty great up here!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Brownies. They are done in this picture, but too dark to see.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Nope. She was a little too nervous.
Dave Hirsch replied to Elizabeth Page's comment.
Ross Lake. It is!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Fine. It wasn't a trial or anything
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
15 minutes' walk as it turns out
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's photo.
I'm predicting a Lord of the Flies type situation where I'll be in Oregon. I'll have you know that I draw the line at cannibalism.
Dave Hirsch commented on Christy Salcido's post.
Time heals all wounds. Each day will be easier. Hang in there and tell the story to everyone; it will lose its bite.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Great to hear!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
I don't care about the new female Dr. Who. But then, I've never cared about Dr. Who at all.
Dave Hirsch commented on Mary Hood's video.
I thought that might have been you up there. It did become a melee of sorts! Good job!
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Resnick's comment.
We're doing our third annual big expedition to Ross Lake next weekend, but I'd been researching other options. Thanks!
Dave Hirsch commented on Keith Raymond's photo.
Sweet! Where are you working?
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Resnick's post.
Cool! What part of the Skagit? Where did you camp?
Dave Hirsch commented on Ellen Rosen Klinenberg's post.
Group: Chatsworth High Class of 87
Okay. Tickets purchased. See you all there!
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Cool!
Dave Hirsch commented on Shoshana Paige's post.
This is a fun race! Did it two years ago. I'll see you there, Shoshana.
Dave Hirsch replied to Matt Smiley's comment.
I just traveled to Bahamas using WA EDL this past weekend (water travel, not air). No problem.
Dave Hirsch commented on Matt Smiley's post.
For New Orleans?! Bullshit. EDL is fine.
Dave Hirsch commented on Matt Smiley's post.
Where are you traveling and how? Maybe an EDL will do?
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
They approve. Just a bit to tide them over until dinner.
Dave Hirsch replied to Emily Mullen's comment.
We just realized that S lost his already. 😠
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
No; "MI" means Merritt Island in this case.
Dave Hirsch replied to Emily Mullen's comment.
If you think it's a kitten, then no. But if you think it's an alligator, then yes!
Dave Hirsch replied to Jimmie Bornstein's comment.
Disney cruise to Nassau out of Orlando.
Dave Hirsch replied to Diane Marzonie's comment.
Greg Roberts I agree that a paper that you always keep on your person or under lock and key is the best, assuming that the passwords you create and write down there are long, random strings of Capitals, numbers, lowercase, and symbols. A paper with simple passwords, or one that you leave someplace for others to find is worse than nothing. Part of the benefit of a password manager is not only that it keeps them safe, but because it fills them in for you onto websites, you can choose longer, more complex passwords.
Charlie - The spreadsheet idea only works if you encrypt the spreadsheet.
Dave Hirsch replied to Diane Marzonie's comment.
I'm a cybersecurity guy. These systems are the best for most folks. There are a number of them out there, and all the major ones are generally comparable. They store your data in encrypted form, so even if your phone is stolen, your passwords are safe (so long as you create a good password for the manager).
Dave Hirsch replied to Marcie Mullen's comment.
It was hot, but not blazing. Maybe 90° ish? Actually fairly mild for Winthrop in June.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's photo.
Happy birthday, Mom! You are an inspiration.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mikael Barbo's comment.
pine!!
Dave Hirsch commented on Randy Rainbow's video.
I think I might like this one best of all! So awesome.
Dave Hirsch commented on Sean Bruna's post.
My favorite is homeopathy. It's good because it's fairly popular, a patently silly idea, and can actually kill people if they rely on it instead of medicine.
Dave Hirsch commented on Sabrina Helm's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Mervyn Larrier's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
There's quite a bit. I would say that if you knew all the WCC curriculum perfectly, you could get about 60% on the exam. There was quite a lot of software development life cycle stuff, auditing and assessment stuff, compliance stuff, other high-level topics. I have some books I got for studying if you want, including a book with two full practice exams that I went through over the past two weeks. You're welcome to borrow them if you like.
Dave Hirsch replied to Travis McEwen's comment.
You helped it happen; thanks, man!
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
There are others but this is the main one.
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
I'm sure you could. Go for it! You can be the security manager you're looking for.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jennifer Armstrong Werner's post.
The Oyster Bar
The Oyster Bar is the fanciest one I know of. Not sure it's my favorite though.
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Resnick's comment.
Okay, I concede the point. Thanks for the good discussion, all.
Dave Hirsch replied to Larry R. Kimball's comment.
Sorry, but that still smells like unethical stuff, not national security stuff. Unless, I suppose, what would be traded away were to be state secrets as opposed to actual political concessions to Russia, such as opposition to sanctions. Actual concessions seems more likely.
Dave Hirsch replied to Adam Klein's comment.
You are losing your touch, Adam. As our mutual friend would say, "Sad!"
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
We are very sad that logistics haven't worked out to go with our good friends Dave and Kim and Brian and Beth this year. However, we are going to soldier on and try to have a great time anyway. If you want to join us, we can promise some great camping, great vistas, and an experience that perfectly splits the difference between car camping and roughing it.

If you've never canoed, don't worry - we can have a training session on Silver Lake beforehand sometime, and it's pretty easy to pick up. You don't need to own a canoe - I will be renting mine from Ross Lake Resort. They had plenty when I called recently, but they do tend to go fast.

We are heading out the morning of Friday July 21 and coming back late in the afternoon on July 24. Message, call, email, or text me if you're interested. Camping space is very limited on Ross Lake, so we're looking for only about four-ish other folks to join us.
Dave Hirsch replied to Monique Grove's comment.
I agree, and see above re: ethics. My NatSec problem / question is still there though.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kevin Flanagan's comment.
I get that, and it's part of the ethics problem. I can see a bit of the relationship to national security, but it seems like people are making a bigger national security argument about it than this.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
??
Dave Hirsch replied to Todd Koetje's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Julie Tamayo's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joe Snow's comment.
Joe Snow it's true that not all electives are being offered but false that the offered ones are in development.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joe Snow's comment.
Joe Snow I don't think that's true. The fact that it's a CS degree means that there is some development, and the security of SW development process is part of things, but most of the classes are not development-related, and Erik has said he is trying to move things away from that aspect in fact. I think that the development stuff is what has given some of the current cohort the most headaches, so that's what they are complaining about.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joe Snow's comment.
WWU. The Cybersecurity program with Erik Fretheim.
Dave Hirsch replied to Frank Ancona's comment.
Frank Ancona after you resolve the existing issue, that will be the appropriate time to bring up a new question. Do you accept that prosecutions of teens for sexting do happen?
Your attempt to change the subject makes it seem like you are unwilling to admit your error.
Dave Hirsch replied to Frank Ancona's comment.
Frank Ancona That is unrelated to the question of whether this is "political bluster" as you say. Diverting this discussion to such a question is evasive. Your comments above suggested that you do not believe that such prosecutions exist. ("You know very well that a court is not going to adjudicate ANY case of teenage sexting unless that "sexting" is for gain or the prurient interests of a pedophile.")

Trying to change the subject without resolving that claim is not good argumentation.
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Dave Hirsch commented on Marcie Mullen's post.
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Amy Mossoff's comment.
Cybersecurity B.S. Second career.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
That doesn't mean I won't donate, but I'm still unhappy about this.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jackie Caplan-Auerbach's post.
I am saddened by this. The University should be funding this basic educational tool. What's next: a bake sale for dry-erase markers and a raffle for lab desks? *sigh*
Dave Hirsch replied to James Smith's comment.
This is too far. Not okay. Don't become what you hate.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Neither Pence or Ryan will blow up basic norms of government. Neither will break the system. They will use the system more effectively for evil ends, but our system is what makes us great, more than our social justice or the like. Evils done within the system can be undone within it later. If the system itself breaks, we have no roadmap back to normalcy.
Dave Hirsch replied to Todd Koetje's comment.
I would still prefer he live to be 109 years old, so that he will see his name become the epitome of incompetence+malice, when basically the whole culture agrees that he was the worst president ever, but I expect he will die before the culture gets there. And that's a shame. He will leave us to pick up the pieces.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
Here's what I said about this idea back in February:

I've decided that Pence's malice is less bad for our country than Trump's disdain for democratic norms and institutions.
If you, like me, believe that Trump is an existential threat to our democracy, and that our democracy is worth sacrifices, then we need to be willing to accept Pence even if his religion-driven evil will be more effectively directed at harming some members of our society than Trump's toddler-in-a-china-shop blundering about.
The opportunity will come, sometime in the near future, when we as liberals will have the opportunity to say "But Pence is bad, too, maybe worse in some ways: if 45 is impeached, then we're stuck with Pence!" We should resist that temptation, because as bad as Pence may be, he is not a threat to democratic institutions and norms. Those democratic institutions are more valuable than (and in fact form the basis for) individual freedoms (esp. of equal treatment for LGBTQ) that Pence will threaten.

(https://www.facebook.com/dave.hirsch/posts/10102106135379870)
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
At least Nixon was around to see his name become a touchstone for political corruption. T will probably go to his grave thinking he was wronged by the liberal elite.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Jeremy's Farm to Table Thanks!! Laurel will love it!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Do you have a link? I don't see them here.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy's Farm to Table's photo.
Would love to see the winners!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
Wait, really? I thought I'd left it at the old house. That's awesome!
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Ed Hirsch's comment.
I first shot a gun with the Boy Scouts at summer camp, if I recall correctly. I've also shot at Bruin Woods a number of times, and once at an event associated with a geology conference, and most recently (prior to this) with Roger. So, it's not my first rodeo.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Group: Action and Empathy
Sandy McCarron I have, but I also think that, in this time when the Right is putting less value on truth, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard of accuracy and correctness in what we do, so it's clear that this trend is not on both sides.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Group: Action and Empathy
Nope. Still not First Amendment, I'd say. Do you know of SCOTUS case law that says otherwise?
Dave Hirsch commented on Sandy McCarron's post.
Group: Action and Empathy
I fully support Colbert, but let's be clear that this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. The Constitution protects your right to speak without government punishment. It has nothing to say about business or personal consequences to making unpopular statements. If CBS fires Colbert (I hope they don't), they will not be infringing his Constitutional rights at all.
Dave Hirsch commented on Todd Koetje's post.
It says "Make Donald Drumpf Again". It was from a John Oliver thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkpJgVdm2Kk
Dave Hirsch commented on Kyle Davis's post.
Which show were you at? I saw it tonight, too!
Dave Hirsch commented on Randy Rainbow's video.
This might be my favorite one yet.
Dave Hirsch replied to a comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
They had Missile Command. Awesome. My favorite old-school video game next to Tempest. Tempest was my go-to, every time.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
If you do cheese fondue (google it), you can use a crockpot. But it's not as healthy, I think.
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Rose Bloom No, it doesn't get hot enough. There are fondue pots that use Sterno cans, or other sources of heat, but they are a pain in the butt. The electric ones are best. You could do it on the cheap if you got a portable burner and just heated a pot of oil. (Something like this: https://www.amazon.com/IMUSA-GAU-80305-Electric-Single-Burner/dp/B005T0SN0K/ref=lp_13838451_1_1?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1492728402&sr=1-1)

Remember: the hotter the oil, the less oil the food will absorb.
Dave Hirsch commented on Rose Bloom's post.
This always gives me some good ideas, even if I don't use their specific recipes (which are paywalled): https://www.cooksillustrated.com/
Dave Hirsch commented on Rose Bloom's post.
Fondue! My favorite is hot-oil. You can make lots of healthy stuff: meats or veggies. Choose or make a couple of dipping sauces (look for shabu shabu recipes). If you don't have a fondue thing, get an electric one - they are pretty cheap. My kids always want me to make tempura batter and then they make tempura everything!
Dave Hirsch commented on RecTennis's link.
I wish they had this at Happy Valley!
Dave Hirsch commented on a photo.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
I'm doing great! Hope you are well, too.
Dave Hirsch replied to Judy Greenberg Hirsch's comment.
Facebook made it. They like the packs a lot!
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
This is 2am the night before
Dave Hirsch replied to Whitney Klein's comment.
Yup!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Don't know why Sawyer looks grumpy. He had fun, really!
Dave Hirsch commented on Bellingham Flag's photo.
Great job! Awesome!
Dave Hirsch commented on Joel O'Connor's post.
I know what my next 6,200 Joel greetings are going to be! Doesn't matter what day it is, it's always a Happy Monday for Joel!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
Joel O'Connor vindicated!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Weinstein's post.
Jammelle Bouie in Slate has an interesting article about how the filibuster is not generally/necessarily a good thing, and that Dems are more generally thwarted by it than using it to thwart. If we step back and take the long view, this change (a) cannot be effectively laid at the feet of the Democrats; and (b) will help us in the long run. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/04/let_the_filibuster_burn_in_truth_democrats_are_better_off_without_it.html
Dave Hirsch commented on a post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Carol Reece Cunningham's comment.
We're still here, actually. She's not leaving until Monday morning. Maybe tonight will work.
Dave Hirsch replied to Carol Reece Cunningham's comment.
Mom thought you were out of the country. She'll call you. (She's driving now)
Dave Hirsch commented on Morgan Rumpf's post.
🎶Somewhere that's green...🎶
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Yes- Elk! There's a herd of like 50 that hang around her parents' property. This is a group of about 15 we saw while out on a walk this morning. They have to fence off the grazing land to keep the elk off it.
Dave Hirsch replied to Jeff Aalfs's comment.
I hope you're right, but I'm skeptical.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Aalfs's post.
I don't think it's in their interest to fix ObamaCare. They want it to break, so that people will be forced to turn to anything else. That's basically what Trump is telling reporters: https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/845362688557486081
Dave Hirsch commented on Michael Hall's post.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Joe Snow's comment.
Thanks, Joe!
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Kyle Davis's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Happy Valley Elementary PTA's link.
I took the photography spot.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch replied to Sarah Pitts's comment.
Dave Hirsch commented on Kevin Hulett's post.
I will never be this cool.
Dave Hirsch replied to Aaron Fitts's comment.
Going up from the lower-right, I am seeing a cowboy hat, and then a saddle with a rope, and then above that, in the upper-right, I'm not 100% sure but I think it might be Cthulhu.
Dave Hirsch commented on Colin Amos's photo.
How can anybody really trust an apology made in Comic Sans, though?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
True!
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Actually, it was Laurel, she says.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
My kids pointed out that Ida looks a lot like Josiah.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Yes
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
I think he had 6 brothers originally and two sisters. This is undated, but I would guess it's in the 1920s sometime.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
With his mom and a couple of siblings (Abraham and Rachel)
Dave Hirsch commented on his own photo.
Yes, it's Grandpa Hirsch.
Dave Hirsch replied to Johanna Mills Shallenberger's comment.
Thanks Johanna!
Dave Hirsch replied to Morgan Rumpf's comment.
Thanks, Morgan! Love you.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joanne Salustri Cherep's post.
Thanks Joanne!
Dave Hirsch commented on LoLo Lizarraga's post.
Thanks Ami!
Dave Hirsch commented on Sharee Lopez's post.
Thanks Sharee!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lauren Blatt Kirsch's post.
Thanks Lauren!
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
It was excellent! Magical! There was some uncanny valley going on, but not too much. All the old stuff and some great new stuff too. Loved Josh Gad and Kevin Kline especially.
Dave Hirsch replied to Hannah Schell's comment.
Thanks, Hannah!
Dave Hirsch commented on Gary Bittner's post.
Thanks Gary!
Dave Hirsch commented on Sandy Cartwright's post.
Thanks Sandy! Hope to see you in August.
Dave Hirsch commented on Ben Leyva's post.
Thanks Ben!
Dave Hirsch commented on Kurt Kirsch's post.
Thanks Kurt! Maybe see you in BC this Summer.
Dave Hirsch commented on Viva Barnes's post.
Thanks Viva!
Dave Hirsch commented on Dave Wilhite's post.
Thanks, Dave!
Dave Hirsch commented on Megan Merritt's post.
Thanks Megan!
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Metter's post.
Thanks, Adam!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jorge Ancona's post.
Thanks, Jorge!
Dave Hirsch commented on Mel Mitchell's post.
Thanks, Uncle Mel!
Dave Hirsch commented on Amy Roseveare's post.
Thanks, Amy!
Dave Hirsch commented on Ryan Nakasone's post.
Thanks, Ryan!
Dave Hirsch commented on Adam Resnick's post.
Thanks, Adam!
Dave Hirsch commented on Beverly Barkan Mitchell's post.
Thanks, Aunt Bev!
Dave Hirsch commented on Anya Binsacca's post.
Thank you, anya. Hope you are well. How's the leg?
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Weinstein's post.
Thanks, Jeff!
Dave Hirsch commented on Diane Marzonie's post.
Thanks, Diane!
Dave Hirsch commented on Russ Granger's post.
Thanks, Russ!
Dave Hirsch commented on Mathew Satuloff's post.
Thanks, Mat! Pretty good so far. :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Julie Levine's post.
Thanks, Julie!
Dave Hirsch commented on Robin Greenberg's post.
Thanks Robin!
Dave Hirsch commented on Annette Castillo Faraldo's post.
Thanks, Annette!
Dave Hirsch commented on Annette Castillo Faraldo's post.
LOL. Haven't heard "RA Dave" in a long time.
Dave Hirsch commented on Joumana Youssef's post.
Thanks, Joumana!
Dave Hirsch commented on Monica Koo-Cross's post.
Thanks, Monica!
Dave Hirsch commented on Ed Hirsch's post.
Thanks, Dad! You're awesome.
Dave Hirsch commented on Todd Koetje's post.
Thanks, Todd! Looking forward to sailing again soon!
Dave Hirsch commented on Tom Weinstein's post.
Thanks, Tom!
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
They look so young! What were these kids doing having a baby?!
Dave Hirsch commented on David M Zvonec's post.
Thanks, Dave!
Dave Hirsch commented on Shannon Merritt's post.
Thanks, Shannon!
Dave Hirsch commented on Noli Gershman Wiesen's post.
Thanks, Noli!
Dave Hirsch commented on Ken Southard's post.
Thanks, Ken!
Dave Hirsch commented on Robert Mark Reed's post.
Thanks, Rob!
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeremy Hirsch's post.
Thanks, Bro!
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
Thanks, Whit!
Dave Hirsch commented on Oreet Herbst's post.
Thanks, Oreet!
Dave Hirsch commented on Kyle Davis's post.
Thanks, Kyle!
Dave Hirsch commented on Marsha Hirsch's post.
Thanks, Ad & Marsha!
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
I've been eagerly awaiting this!
Dave Hirsch commented on Chara Caruthers's post.
Thanks! You're the first. :)
Dave Hirsch replied to Rita Marie's comment.
Right! Wouldn't Shayden love a little sibling to play with?
Dave Hirsch replied to Rita Marie's comment.
Actually, it was less "WTH" and more "Whaaaat?!"
Dave Hirsch commented on Mathew Satuloff's post.
I had a giant "WTH?!" moment before I saw the date.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
So happy for you, Mom! Looking forward to skiing with you again next year!
Dave Hirsch replied to Shad Malone's comment.
My understanding is that most people who serve on a jury actually come away feeling good about the process (if perhaps frustrated at the time away from normal work, etc.).
Dave Hirsch replied to Shad Malone's comment.
I was on a jury once before, in Texas, and it was a great experience.
Dave Hirsch replied to Richard Robert Lynch's comment.
Richard Robert Lynch Please re-read my post: I clearly equated government paying for things with taxpayers paying for them. I understand where government money comes from, and I think most people do, as well. Ultimately, we consumers all pay for everything, either in taxes or in payments and other costs. The key questions are: (1) how are the payments and benefits apportioned among the members of society; and (2) how efficiently are the funds paid in producing the desired benefits? These are two totally separate questions. My point was directed at the second, suggesting that efficiency is far higher (in mature industries) if the organization collecting payments and distributing benefits is one whose goal is not profit. (In immature industries, I don't think that is the case, because the profit motive drives innovation towards greater efficiency. I don't think insurance industries are doing much innovating, though.)
The first question, about apportioning payments and benefits, is thornier, and gets at big issues like income inequality and what kind of a society we want to live in. It's less an economic question than a political one. Personally, I would prefer to live in a more economically equal society, one more like the 1970s or even the 1960s (http://www.epi.org/publication/the-top-10-charts-of-2014/). I think that systems like Obamacare help, in a very small way, to achieve that.
Dave Hirsch replied to Richard Robert Lynch's comment.
There's a big difference between the government (i.e., taxpayers) paying for it, and insurance companies (i.e., you and the other rate-payers) paying for it. The government doesn't have huge overheads of people whose job it is to take some of that money and use it to (a) sell things; (b) make a profit; (c) figure out ways to deny or limit coverage. Therefore, it's way, WAY cheaper if the government pays.
Dave Hirsch commented on Sean Bruna's photo.
So...the best possible bill is the one that is so short it doesn't exist?
Dave Hirsch commented on Kyle Davis's post.
Here's what I think is a reasonably good way to sort the good from the bad media outlets: do they publish corrections, and when they make a big mistake, do they make a big deal about it? For example, when the NYT's Judith Miller was very wrong about Bush and Iraq, the NYT published an unusual mea culpa about this error in the form of a note by the executive editor (May 26, 2004, according to Wikipedia, and referenced here: http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/). I don't think the fringe media sources on either side publish regular corrections, and I definitely don't see them hand-wringing about things they got wrong in a big way.

One from the left: The Daily Kos had a piece about NPS blocking DC demonstrations, which is false (http://www.snopes.com/national-park-service-denying-inauguration-protest-permits/). I don't see any correction on the Daily Kos website.

One from the right: The Daily Caller falsely implicated Jean Shaeen in 2014 in an effort to have the IRS crack down on conservative non-profits, based on secret letters. (http://www.politifact.com/new-hampshire/statements/2014/nov/04/daily-caller/jeanne-shaheen-hit-last-minute-attack-over-lois-le/) I don't see any correction on that website either.

My point is that some media sources actually care about getting facts right, and those are the ones we should give weight to. No media outlet will be right 100% of the time, and having corrections and retractions shows that they care about the facts.
Dave Hirsch replied to Peyton Winterowd-Laughman's comment.
Ha! No - I never treadmill. It was out the window near the back flex things on the track.
Dave Hirsch commented on his own post.
At WWU too.
Dave Hirsch commented on Judy Greenberg Hirsch's post.
Maybe we can leave out the David-being-sick-as-dog part?
Dave Hirsch replied to his own comment.
Glad to see such thoughtful political discussion here. :)
Dave Hirsch commented on Breitbart's link.
Interestingly, this Breitbart article does not claim that the Obama administration did anything unlawful. The fact that it claims an investigation included signals intelligence that included Trump organization and was approved by the FISA court suggests that this court believed that (a) Trump folks were talking to foreigners; and (b) there was a likelihood that crimes were involved.

I'm not sure Trump should really want this investigated too deeply.
Dave Hirsch commented on Lukas Pittman's post.
"...this iS NOT the case"
Dave Hirsch commented on Jason Fiber's photo.
Seriously? You are as old as I am. This should be burned into your memory.
Dave Hirsch commented on Jeff Weinstein's post.
I agree. This is not okay.
Dave Hirsch commented on a link.
Dave Hirsch commented on Whitney Klein's post.
I had no idea!
Dave Hirsch commented on Adrienne Solenberger's post.